评论
打印
What does the Supreme Court’s Ohio decision mean for voting rights?
最高法院就俄亥俄案做出的裁决对选举权意味着什么？
WHEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHELD Ohio’s method of cleaning up its voter rolls in a 5-4 decision on June 11,
6月11日，最高法院以5：4的投票结果裁定批准俄亥俄州清理选民名册的做法，
the ruling focused in large part on technical interpretations of federal voting law—
很大程度上讲，这项裁决的焦点是对联邦选举法的技术性阐释——
but it also represented a broader debate about partisan visions of democracy.
但也反映出带有党派色彩的民主愿景已经引发了广泛的争论。
The case centered on Larry Harmon,
这起案件的核心人物是拉里·哈蒙，
a software engineer who found he’d been taken off the voter-registration list when he showed up to cast a ballot in 2015.
此人是一名软件工程师，2015年参加投票时，他发现自己已经被从选民登记册上除名。
In Ohio, his home state, election officials can send residency confirmation notices to anyone who skips one federal election cycle.
在他的家乡俄亥俄州，选举官员有权向任何跳过一届联邦选举的选民发放居住确认通知。
If a voter fails to respond and doesn’t vote in the next four years, that person is purged from the rolls.
如果选民没有回应，且在接下来的四年内依然没有投票，就会被从选民名册上除名。
Ohio sent Harmon such a notice, but he said he never got it.
俄亥俄州给哈蒙寄出过这样的通知，但他说他从来没有收到过。
So, unable to vote, he went to court.
于是，无法投票的他走上了法庭。
All states have systems for clearing registration lists of people who move away.
美国各州均有清理登记名册，将已搬离相应州的选民除名的制度。
The question here was whether failing to vote could trigger this process.
本案的问题是，未能投票是否会激活这一程序。
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion that, even if Harmon never got the message,
塞缪尔·阿利托法官在他的多数派意见书中写道，即便哈蒙未曾收到通知，
Ohio’s attempt to contact voters meant the state didn’t violate the National Voter Registration Act.
州政府试图联系选民这一点都意味着该州没有违反《全国选民登记法》。
The case exposed a deep divide in how Americans interpret the idea of safeguarding the vote.
这一案件也暴露出美国人对捍卫选举权的理解存在严重的分歧。
Conservatives tend to argue that the vote needs to be protected from fraud, and call for more intensive scrutiny of voter rolls.
保守派倾向于认为应该保护选举免受舞弊的污染，倾向于呼吁加大对选民名册的审查力度。
(Many studies, including a 2014 report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S.)
(许多研究——包括无党派机构美国政府问责局2014年的一份报告在内——都尚未发现有证据能够表明美国存在广泛的选民欺诈行为。)
Meanwhile, liberals say the ability to vote is what needs protecting—
与此同时，自由派人士表示，需要保护的是选民的投票机会——
and that obstacles to doing so are meant to disenfranchise their constituencies,
阻碍实现这一目标的障碍为的就是剥夺选民的选举权，
as tactics that make it harder to register disproportionately hurt poor and minority voters.
另一方面，加大登记难度的选举政策对贫困选民和少数族裔选民造成的伤害尤为严重。
Harmon’s lawyers noted that 7,500 eligible Ohioans would have been unable to vote in the 2016 presidential election without an earlier decision in his favor.
哈蒙的律师一致表示，如果早前没有做出对哈蒙有利的裁决，将有7500名符合条件的俄亥俄人无法在2016年总统大选中投票。
Ohio’s secretary of state said on June 12 that voters won’t be purged from the rolls before November’s midterms,
6月12日，俄亥俄州务卿表示，11月中期选举前，选民们不会被从选民名册上除名，
but now that the Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling,
然而，由于最高法院推翻了此前的裁决，
voting-rights advocates fear the decision’s impact could spread beyond Ohio in future elections.
投票权倡导者担心，这一裁决可能影响到俄亥俄州以外的其他地区日后的选举。
At least six other states have similar laws— although Ohio’s process moves quickest—and others are watching the case.
除俄亥俄外，至少还有6个州有类似的法律——俄亥俄州的程序进展更快——他们也都在关注此案。
“There’s a real risk that other secretaries of state will see this as an excuse to kick people off the voting rolls,”
“其他州务卿很可能会将最高法院的这一裁决视为他们将选民踢出登记名单的借口。
says Daniel Tokaji, a co-counsel on the lawsuit for Harmon and a voting-rights expert at Ohio State University.
俄亥俄州立大学投票权专家、哈蒙诉讼案的其中一名法律顾问丹尼尔·托卡吉评价道。
”Some advocates said the ruling presents a good opportunity to push for Election Day registration, which could provide a “fail-safe” if voters are accidentally purged.
一些倡导者表示，最高法院的裁决为推动选举日登记提供了良好的契机，如果选民被意外清除，选举日登记或将为他们提供一项“故障保险”。
But until then, “some people are going to fall through the cracks,”
但在那之前，“还是会有一些选民被遗漏掉，”
says Lonna Atkeson, an expert on voting rights and election law at the University of New Mexico.
新墨西哥大学投票权和选举法专家隆纳·阿特克森表示。
“Those are going to be disproportionately Democratic voters.”
“其中，民主党选民被遗漏的可能性更大。”
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
