2026年2月4日 / 美国东部时间下午1:59 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 — 最高法院周三拒绝阻止加州新的国会选区地图，该地图可能在即将到来的中期选举中为民主党增加五个席位。
最高法院的这一裁决为加州今年国会选举中使用其52个众议院选区中大部分新划定的选区边界扫清了道路。没有明显的异议。
该地图是为了回应去年得克萨斯州共和党人罕见的中期重新划分选区而制定的，其目的是帮助共和党维持对国会下议院的控制权。加州官员试图绘制一张能让民主党在众议院获得五个席位的地图，以抵消得克萨斯州新划定的有利于共和党的五个席位。
加州选民在11月支持了一项名为《第50号提案》的投票措施，该措施通过到本十年末为该州许多国会选区制定了新的选区边界。
但在选民批准该地图后不久，一群加州共和党人提起诉讼，指控这些选举边界违宪。原告称，州立法机构在绘制地图的过程中主要依赖种族因素，并绘制了几个众议院选区边界以有利于拉丁裔选民，这违反了宪法第十四修正案和第十五修正案。
特朗普政府加入了这场诉讼，并声称该地图是违宪的种族操纵选区。
但一个由三名联邦法官组成的分歧小组维持了该地图的有效性，认定加州立法者在绘制新的国会选区时动机是出于政治目的，而非种族因素。
约瑟夫娜·斯塔顿法官为两名法官的多数派写道：“我们发现，所提供的证据表明，《第50号提案》正是其宣传的那样：一场旨在将五个共和党控制的席位转为民主党控制的政治操纵选区行为。换句话说，《第50号提案》地图被采纳的‘推动力’是‘纯粹的党派优势’。”
加州共和党人上月向最高法院寻求紧急救济，要求法官们在2026年选举周期中阻止该州使用新选区，并要求其使用2021年由独立重新划分选区委员会通过的国会选区边界。
他们要求最高法院在2月9日前做出裁决，届时国会候选人可以开始提交参选文件。
加州共和党人的律师在其救济请求中写道：“公众对根据合宪的选区边界进行的选举具有至高无上的利益。当州在构建代表单位时按种族对选民进行分类，代议制政府的完整性就会受到破坏。”
特朗普政府支持共和党选民，并敦促最高法院阻止加州使用新地图。副检察长D.约翰·绍尔在一份文件中辩称，种族被用作政治的替代指标，并表示加州最近的重新划分选区是“被一场违宪的种族操纵选区行为玷污的”。
“当然，加州采用《第50号提案》地图的整体动机无疑是为了抵消得克萨斯州的政治操纵选区行为，”他写道，“但这一总体政治目标并不能成为在选区层面进行种族操纵选区的许可证。”
在敦促最高法院维持新的众议院选区边界的同时，加州官员表示，共和党人提起诉讼挑战该州地图，同时也为得克萨斯州新的投票边界辩护，只是为了确保共和党人能保住众议院控制权。
“这是一个自然的政治目标，正如纽森州长和加州民主党人想要抵消共和党人的策略一样自然，”他们在一份文件中写道，“但非常不自然的是——事实上，与民主和司法公正的基本原则相违背——原告要求本法院介入政治纷争，通过禁止加州的党派操纵选区行为而给予一个政党巨大优势，而此前却允许得克萨斯州的操纵选区行为生效。”
支持新选区边界的美国拉丁美洲公民联盟的律师辩称，加州的地图获得了超过700万选民的批准，并表示有“压倒性证据”表明众议院选区边界是为了党派目的而重新绘制的。
“在活跃的初选竞选期间，现在改变加州整个重新划分选区的地图，将对选举官员、选民、政党以及候选人造成极大的干扰，”他们在敦促最高法院维持新投票边界的文件中写道。
去年夏天，在特朗普总统和白宫助手推动得克萨斯州共和党人制定新地图以帮助共和党人保住众议院多数席位后，得克萨斯州共和党人开始重新划分新的众议院选区边界。但得克萨斯州共和党立法者的这一决定引发了其他州为2026年选举周期重新绘制各自国会选区地图的竞赛。
加州民主党人着手制定新的投票边界，以抵消得克萨斯州新划定的有利于共和党的席位，马里兰州和弗吉尼亚州的民主党人也在推动重新划分选区。然而，弗吉尼亚州的一名州法官裁定，一项允许民主党重新绘制国会选区地图的宪法修正案是非法的。在另一边，北卡罗来纳州和密苏里州的共和党人批准了各自的计划，试图将一个民主党控制的席位转向右侧。
得克萨斯州一个由三名法官组成的分歧小组阻止该州在中期选举中使用重新划分的众议院选区，并认定该地图存在种族操纵选区行为。但州共和党人要求最高法院介入，最高法院在12月恢复了得克萨斯州新的国会投票边界。
在一份协同意见中，塞缪尔·阿利托大法官表示，他认为政治因素是推动得克萨斯州和加利福尼亚州立法者在重新划分选区过程中的主要因素。阿利托与克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官共同写道，“不容置疑的是”，“得克萨斯州地图（以及随后加州采用的地图）被采纳的‘推动力’是纯粹的党派优势。”
纽森在加州重新划分选区获胜后在得克萨斯州集会
纽森在加州重新划分选区获胜后在得克萨斯州集会
（02:10）
Supreme Court lets California use new congressional map in midterms, rejecting bid to block it
February 4, 2026 / 1:59 PM EST / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to block California’s new congressional map that could net Democrats five seats in the upcoming midterm elections.
The decision from the high court clears the way for California to use for now the newly drawn lines for most of its 52 House districts in this year’s congressional elections. There were no noted dissents.
The map was crafted in response to a rare mid-decade redistricting by Texas Republicans last year, which aimed to help the GOP maintain its control of the lower chamber in Congress. California officials sought to draw a map that would see Democrats pick up five seats in the House, which would offset the five seats that were newly crafted in Texas to favor Republicans.
California voters backed a ballot measure known as Proposition 50 in November, which enacted the new lines for many of the state’s congressional districts through the end of the decade.
But shortly after voters approved the map, a group of California Republicans filed a lawsuit alleging that the voting boundaries are unconstitutional. The plaintiffs alleged that the state legislature relied predominantly on race in the mapmaking process and drew several House district lines to favor Latino voters, which violated the 14th and 15th Amendments.
The Trump administration joined the lawsuit and claimed the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
But a divided panel of three federal judges upheld the map, finding that California lawmakers were motivated by politics, not race, when they drew new congressional districts.
“We find that the evidence presented reflects that Proposition 50 was exactly what it was billed as: a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican-held seats to the Democrats,” Judge Josephine Staton wrote for the two-judge majority. “In other words, the ‘impetus for the adoption’ of the Proposition 50 Map was ‘partisan advantage pure and simple.’”
California Republicans sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court last month and asked the justices to stop the state from using the new districts during the 2026 election cycle and instead require it to use congressional lines adopted in 2021 by an independent redistricting commission.
They asked the high court to issue a decision by Feb. 9, when congressional candidates can begin submitting paperwork to run.
“The public has a paramount interest in elections conducted under constitutionally valid district lines,” lawyers for California Republicans wrote in their request for relief. “The integrity of representative government is undermined when the State sorts voters by race in constructing the very units of representation.”
The Trump administration backed the GOP voters and urged the Supreme Court to block California from using the new map. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a filing that race was used as a proxy for politics, and said California’s recent redistricting is “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
“Of course, California’s motivation in adopting the Prop 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” he wrote. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”
In urging the Supreme Court to leave the new House district lines in place, California officials said Republicans only brought their suit challenging the state’s map — while also defending Texas’ new voting boundaries — to ensure Republicans hold onto the House.
“That is a natural political objective, just as it was natural for Governor Newsom and California Democrats to want to counteract Republicans’ strategy,” they wrote in a filing. “But what is deeply unnatural — indeed, contrary to fundamental principles of democracy and judicial impartiality — is plaintiffs’ request for this Court to step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage by enjoining California’s partisan gerrymander after having allowed Texas’s to take effect.”
Lawyers for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is backing the new lines, argued that California’s map was approved by more than 7 million voters and said there is “overwhelming evidence” that the House district lines were redrawn for partisan purposes.
“It would be extremely disruptive to election officials, voters, and political parties, in addition to candidates, to change California’s entire redistricting map now, during an active primary campaign,” they wrote in a filing urging the Supreme Court to leave the new voting lines in place.
Texas Republicans moved to draw new House district lines last summer after President Trump and White House aides pushed them to create a new map that would help Republicans hold onto their majority in the House. But the decision by Texas GOP lawmakers set off a race for other states to redraw their own congressional maps for the 2026 election cycle.
Democrats in California went to work crafting new voting lines that would counter the new GOP-favored seats in Texas, and redistricting efforts spearheaded by Democrats are underway in Maryland and Virginia. A state judge in Virginia, however, ruled a proposed constitutional amendment allowing Democrats to redraw its congressional map was illegal. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans in North Carolina and Missouri approved plans that each sought to shift a single Democrat-held seat to the right.
A divided three-judge panel in Texas blocked the state from using its redrawn House districts for the midterm elections and found the map was racially gerrymandered. But state Republicans asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and the high court restored Texas’ new congressional voting lines in December.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito indicated that he believed politics was the predominant factor driving state lawmakers in Texas and California in the redistricting process. Joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Alito wrote “it is indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Newsom rallies in Texas after Prop 50 win
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/newsom-rallies-in-texas-after-california-redistricting-win/
Newsom rallies crowds in Texas after California redistricting win
(02:10)