6月17日，美国最高法院在一起种族歧视性杰利蝾螈案中做出了反对弗吉尼亚州参议院的判决。最高法院驳回了上诉，案件判决结果让弗吉尼亚州的民主党人取得了渴望已久的胜利。

杰利蝾螈指的是通过重新划分选区，让某一党派在选举中更具优势，迫使另一方“浪费”选票。例如，有些人划定选区界线时，可能会把反对党的支持者集中在同一个选区，集中选票，这样他们就只能影响少数几个席位。

最高法院在长达22页的意见书中表示，按照之前地方法院的判定，由共和党人控制的弗吉尼亚州参议院划定的几份选区地图违宪，属于种族歧视性的杰利蝾螈行为，该州参议院在法律上无权就此提出异议。按照最高法院的裁定结果，地方法院判定的更有利于民主党的选区地图将继续使用。

或者，这样做也可能意味着把反对派选民集中到了由另外一方政党把持的选区，导致反对党很难赢得选举。

此前，弗吉尼亚州的首席检察官（民主党人）决定不就地方法院推翻选区地图的裁决提出上诉，后来弗吉尼亚州参议院提出上诉，最高法院受理了此案。

弗吉尼亚州参议院诉贝苏尼-希尔一案最终的裁决结果得到了5票赞成、4票反对，大法官鲁思·巴德尔·金斯伯格撰写了支持派的意见。该判决还得到了法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和尼尔·戈萨奇的支持，他们有人属于自由派，也有人是保守派。

虽然最高法院按照基本原则驳回了上诉请求，但法官们并未裁定这些地图是否构成违宪的种族歧视性杰利蝾螈行为。

“法庭注意到，弗吉尼亚州将重划选区的权力授予了‘全体大会’。的确如此。”金斯伯格写道，“（但是），在两院制立法机构中，其中一院不能违背立法方其他合作伙伴的意愿，单独进行诉讼。”

金斯伯格还表示，“如果该州指定参议院代表其利益，州参议院也确实履行了这一使命，我们将认同州参议院可以代表该州立场。然而，这两个先决条件在此都未得到满足。”

在反对派的意见中，法官小塞缪尔·阿利托写道，弗吉尼亚州参议院受到了伤害，完全有权提起诉讼，他在辩词中甚至使用体育运动进行类比。

“正是由于划定选区的方式、立法机构的组成以及立法机构所做工作之间存在种种联系，人们才投入了如此多的精力划分选区，表达质疑，进行辩论。”小阿利托写道，“弦乐四重奏乐团对大提琴家的身份感兴趣吗？”他问道。“篮球队对控球后卫的身份感兴趣吗？”

首席大法官小约翰·罗伯茨、大法官塞缪尔·布雷耶和布雷特·卡瓦诺也同样持不同意见。

弗吉尼亚州首席检察官马克·赫林在一份声明中说，6月17日最高法院的裁决是民主的胜利。

赫林说：“不幸的是，州参议院的共和党人浪费了纳税人数百万美元，花了几个月时间诉讼，试图为种族歧视性不公平划分选区的做法护航，但徒劳无功。但好消息是，今年秋季的选举将按照符合宪法的选区划分举行。”

美国前总统贝拉克·奥巴马任内的司法部部长埃里克·霍尔德于6月17日在推特上表示，这项裁决对那些自从2011年来就被迫在因种族歧视不公正划分的选区投票的弗吉尼亚人意义重大，原来的选区划分损害了他们的投票权。

“今天最高法院的裁决对弗吉尼亚州的非裔美国人来说是重大胜利，他们被迫在因种族歧视被不公正划分的选区投票，这些选区剥夺了他们应有的权力。非常可耻。今年秋天，所有弗吉尼亚人都将能够参与公正的选举。”霍尔德说。（财富中文网）

译者：Agatha

Gerrymandering occurs when voting districts are redrawn to benefit one party over another in elections, forcing the other side to “waste” votes. For example, someone drawing district lines might bunch opposition party voters together in one district in order to concentrate their votes so that they influence only a few seats.

The high court said in a 22-page opinion the G.O.P.-controlled house didn’t have a legal right to challenge a previous lower court opinion that struck down several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. As a result of the ruling, court-ordered maps favoring Democrats will remain in use.

Or, it could mean grouping those opposition voters into districts where the other party gains a hold on power, making it very difficult for the opposing party to win elections.

The Supreme Court took the case after Virginia’s House of Delegates filed an appeal after the state’s attorney general, a Democrat, decided not to appeal the ruling striking down the voting maps.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a 5-4 decision in the case, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, getting both liberal and conservative backing from Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.

With the court dismissing the challenge on standing grounds, the justices didn’t rule if the maps constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

“The House observes that Virginia gives redistricting authority to the ‘General Assembly.’ True enough,” Ginsburg wrote. “(But) One House of its bicameral legislature cannot alone continue the litigation against the will of its partners in the legislative process.

“If the State had designated the House to represent its interests, and if the House had in fact carried out that mission, we would agree that the House could stand in for the State. Neither precondition, however, is met here,” Ginsburg continued.

In opposition, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote that the Virginia House of Delegates suffered an injury and had every right to pursue a lawsuit, even using a sports analogy in his defense.

“It is precisely because of the connections between the way districts are drawn, the composition of a legislature and the things that a legislature does that so much effort is invested in drawing, contesting and defending districting plans,” Alito Jr. wrote. “Does a string quartet have an interest in the identity of its cellist?” he asked. “Does a basketball team have an interest in the identity of its point guard?”

Alito Jr. was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., and Justices Samuel Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement that Supreme Court ruling on June 17 is a win for democracy.

“It’s unfortunate that House Republicans wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and months of litigation in a futile effort to protect racially gerrymandered districts, but the good news is that this fall’s elections will take place in constitutionally drawn districts,” Herring said.

Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general under former president Barack Obama, said in a tweet on June 17 that the ruling is significant for those Virginians forced since 2011 to vote in racially gerrymandered districts that unjustly undermined the privilege to vote.

“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is an important victory for African Americans in Virginia who have been forced to vote in racially gerrymandered districts that kept rightful power away from them. Shameful. Fair elections will finally happen this fall for ALL Virginians,” Holder said.