Please Discuss … the shifting map of the 2026 midterm elections

In the debut episode of Please Discuss, Brookings scholar E.J.

在《请讨论》的首集中，布鲁金斯学会学者 E.J.

Dionne moderates a conversation about how changes to voting could have consequences for the 2026 midterm election landscape.

Dionne 主持了一场有关投票变化如何对 2026 年中期选举格局产生影响的对话。

Brookings scholars Elaine Kamarck, Elena Patel, and Scott Anderson examine mid-decade redistricting battles, court rulings over mail-in ballots, and the legal challenges testing both election administrators and voters across the country.

布鲁金斯学会学者伊莱恩·卡马克、埃琳娜·帕特尔和斯科特·安德森研究了十年中的选区重新划分之争、法院对邮寄选票的裁决，以及考验全国各地选举管理人员和选民的法律挑战。

Today, we are proud to carry on that tradition.

今天，我们很自豪能够继承这一传统。

To start things off with Please Discuss , we’re launching a three-part miniseries on what’s really shaping the 2026 midterms, the shifting rules over where and how we vote, the issues motivating voters, and what the outcome will mean for the balance of power in Washington.

首先，我们将推出一部由三部分组成的迷你剧，内容涉及真正影响 2026 年中期选举的因素、投票地点和方式的变化规则、激励选民的问题，以及结果对华盛顿的权力平衡意味着什么。

Today, in part one, “The Shifting Map,” we look past the daily headlines to examine the changing electoral landscape, mid-decade redistricting battles, court rulings over voting rules, and the legal challenges testing both election administrators and voters across the country.

今天，在第一部分“不断变化的地图”中，我们回顾每日头条新闻，审视不断变化的选举格局、十年中期的选区重新划分之争、法院对投票规则的裁决，以及考验全国各地选举管理者和选民的法律挑战。

Joining me today to break down where things stand are Scott Anderson, a senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings.

今天与我一起分析现状的是布鲁金斯学会治理研究高级研究员斯科特·安德森。

He is also the general counsel and senior editor at Lawfare.

他还是 Lawfare 的总法律顾问和高级编辑。

Welcome, Scott.

欢迎，斯科特。

So right now, the Postal Service confronts sort of unprecedented financial challenges just to keep operations rolling at the same time that the administration tried to require the Postal Service to do new things, to introduce sort of what the administration says are safeguards and others say are actually just obstacles to voting, to the way the Postal Service administers the elections.

因此，现在，邮政服务面临着前所未有的财务挑战，只是为了保持业务运转，同时政府试图要求邮政服务做新的事情，引入一些政府所说的保障措施，而其他人则认为实际上只是投票的障碍，影响邮政服务管理选举的方式。

And so, for example, one of them was the executive order that was issued this past March that asked states to provide to the federal government lists of voter rolls.

例如，其中之一是今年三月发布的行政命令，要求各州向联邦政府提供选民名册。

The states maintain eligibility lists.

各州保留资格名单。

The states register voters, and typically that information has stayed with the states.

各州登记选民，通常这些信息都由各州保留。

The federal government is requiring, with some legal challenges, these lists to be submitted, and the administration also wanted the Postal Service to act as a kind of bouncer, checking every ballot that was coming out from election officials against these national lists and refusing to send on ballots that were deemed to be coming from ineligible voters.

联邦政府要求提交这些名单，但存在一些法律挑战，政府还希望邮政服务充当保镖的角色，根据这些国家名单检查选举官员发出的每一张选票，并拒绝发送被认为来自不合格选民的选票。

I want to turn to Scott on the law on this but let me just ask one other question on that.

我想请斯科特谈谈这方面的法律，但让我再问另一个问题。

Even if much of what the administration wanted to do originally is cast aside, there are other ways in which the postal system can affect how the election goes.

即使政府最初想做的大部分事情都被搁置了，邮政系统仍然可以通过其他方式影响选举的进行。

There were fears back in 2020 that ballots weren’t being delivered on time, that there were slow-rolling delivery.

早在 2020 年，人们就担心选票无法按时交付、交付缓慢。

Can you talk about that?

你能谈谈吗？

So this year, for example, the Postal Service in the last 18 months has started to consolidate its processing network, which can sound boring and like it has nothing to do with elections.

例如，今年，邮政服务在过去 18 个月内开始整合其处理网络，这听起来很无聊，而且好像与选举无关。

Why are they doing this?

他们为什么要这样做？

They face very large cash flow shortages right now, and they’re trying to improve efficiency of operations.

他们目前面临着非常大的现金流短缺，他们正在努力提高运营效率。

What does that have to do with elections?

这和选举有什么关系？

There’s now longer travel time for ballots when voters drop them off at the post office for them to go to a processing center and then be returned to election officials.

现在，选民将选票送到邮局，然后送到处理中心，然后返回给选举官员时，选票的运输时间更长。

And so what the fear is, is that if voters don’t adjust their own mailing behavior, what they were doing in the last 2024, 2022 elections in terms of when they mailed their ballot may not be sufficient, and then their ballots may arrive late and be not counted.

因此，令人担忧的是，如果选民不调整自己的邮寄行为，他们在上一次 2024 年、2022 年选举中邮寄选票的做法可能不够充分，然后他们的选票可能会延迟到达而不会被计入在内。

And so those are the kinds of things that I think people don’t think about but matter quite a lot in the administration of elections.

因此，我认为这些事情人们不会考虑，但在选举管理中却非常重要。

Scott, talk to us about what the courts have done.

斯科特，请跟我们谈谈法院的做法。

On the one hand, you see the mail ballot decision where the court essentially struck down on a seven to two vote, yet recently on this idea of citizenship checks, letting, you know, states use federal lists to check citizenship, an unprecedented move and also a really odd move in many ways because there’s so little evidence that non-citizens vote in, not even substantial numbers.

一方面，你会看到邮寄选票的决定，法院基本上以七比二的票数否决了这一决定，但最近关于公民身份检查的想法，让各州使用联邦名单来检查公民身份，这是前所未有的举动，而且在很多方面也是一个非常奇怪的举动，因为几乎没有证据表明非公民投票，甚至没有大量的非公民投票。

They hardly vote at all.

他们几乎不投票。

Talk about those two cases.

说一下这两个案例。

One went against the administration; the other went for it.

一个人反对政府；一个人反对政府；一个人反对政府。另一个则同意了。

And that’s a double-edged sword.

这是一把双刃剑。

Sometimes it means that the federal government can’t do things that we worry or some people worry might interfere with an election.

有时，这意味着联邦政府不能做我们担心的事情，或者有些人担心可能会干扰选举的事情。

I think the postal office rule is a good example of that, where you saw the Supreme Court say, as you noted, 7-2, “No, you cannot implement this rule.”

我认为邮局规则就是一个很好的例子，正如您所指出的，7-2，最高法院说：“不，你不能执行这条规则。”

Now, at least one of the justices, Justice Kavanaugh, said it was a timing issue, that this was primarily because it was happening too close to the election.

现在，至少一位法官卡瓦诺法官表示，这是一个时间问题，这主要是因为它发生的时间太接近选举了。

Maybe, and he said actually probably, actually would be lawful if it were given farther in advance with enough time to implement.

也许，他说实际上可能，如果提前更早并有足够的时间来实施，实际上是合法的。

I would say I’m not sure it’s clear the other six justices that ruled against the government actually agree with that.

我想说的是，我不确定其他六名做出不利于政府裁决的法官是否真的同意这一点。

And the lower courts have enjoined the same order on more substantive grounds.

下级法院也以更实质性的理由下达了同样的命令。

So, I’m not sure we know where that comes out.

所以，我不确定我们知道结果在哪里。

There at least could be, and likely will be, a continuing legal fight over this order looking to the 2028 election.

展望 2028 年大选，至少可能而且很可能会围绕这一命令展开持续的法律斗争。

But the key philosophy was, okay, federal government, you can’t muck around with this too much, because you’re mucking around with the state rules too close to the election.

但关键的理念是，好吧，联邦政府，你不能对这个问题搞太多，因为你在距离选举太近的时候对州规则进行了修改。

The other flip side, you see cases like, how states manage and use federal resources, whether the citizenship list or even going all the way back to the Callais decision about the Voting Rights Act and how that can constrain how state legislatures engage in redistricting.

另一方面，你会看到诸如各州如何管理和使用联邦资源的案例，无论是公民名单，还是一直追溯到卡莱关于投票权法案的决定，以及这如何限制州立法机构重新划分选区的方式。

And you see them pulling back federal restrictions that Congress had originally imposed, in that latter case in particular, saying essentially, “Look, this is mostly a state-run issue, and particularly around election that’s too politically sensitive.

你会看到他们撤回了国会最初施加的联邦限制，特别是在后一种情况下，他们本质上说，“看，这主要是一个国家管理的问题，特别是围绕政治过于敏感的选举。

We shouldn’t be involved in that.” In that case, they said essentially, “Hey, look, the Voting Rights Act prohibits us, and the federal government can prohibit state legislatures from expressly or clearly relying on racial animus for redistricting.” But if they can make the case what they’re doing is partisan, that’s permissible.

我们不应该参与其中。”在这种情况下，他们基本上是说，“嘿，看，投票权法案禁止我们，联邦政府可以禁止州立法机构明确或明确地依赖种族敌意来重新划分选区。”但如果他们能够证明他们所做的事情是有党派倾向的，那就是允许的。

And not only that is not a political question, something the court shouldn’t be involved in.

这不仅不是一个政治问题，也是法院不应该介入的事情。

Can you talk about that?

你能谈谈吗？

Because I think that is something that is under-discussed in terms of how radical these moves by the court are, at least in my view.

因为我认为，至少在我看来，就法院这些举措的激进程度而言，这一点尚未得到充分讨论。

This is the other edge of the fact that they are more deferential to state authorities on managing their elections.

这是他们在管理选举时更加尊重州当局这一事实的另一个优势。

Initially, we saw a few years ago Section 5 get essentially gutted on the idea that the formula was too dated, that these restrictions were in place and not adequate.

最初，几年前我们看到第 5 节基本上被认为是公式太过时了，这些限制已经到位但还不够充分。

Now we see more recently this Callais decision essentially saying, no, redistricting can be based on partisan determinations.

现在我们最近看到卡莱的决定实质上是说，不，选区重新划分可以基于党派决定。

There’s still a prohibition there, they haven’t completely eliminated it, where they say, “Well, look, if there’s clear evidence that racial animus, not partisan desire, was the driving instinct, yes, that can still be prohibited.”

那里仍然存在禁令，他们还没有完全消除它，他们说，“好吧，看，如果有明确的证据表明种族敌意，而不是党派欲望，是驱动本能，是的，这仍然可以被禁止。”

So it’s a problem.

所以这是一个问题。

Don’t get me wrong.

别误会我的意思。

I mean, it is a radical shift.

我的意思是，这是一个根本性的转变。

But it’s not a radical shift that sometimes people look at these cases and they say, “This is the court radically ruling in favor of one political party.” It is more complicated than that because some of these measures are going to go against the Republican federal government because, again, their core philosophy is we gotta push more of this to the states.

但这并不是一个根本性的转变，有时人们在看待这些案件时会说，“这是法院从根本上做出有利于某一政党的裁决。”事情比这更复杂，因为其中一些措施将与共和党联邦政府相悖，因为他们的核心理念是我们必须将更多措施推向各州。

And you see cases like the Missouri case most recently, where you saw an effort to install a new redistricting scheme get invalidated by the state law, and you saw a number of people, including Republicans at the national level, say, “No, we actually want to get this new map in place,” and the Supreme Court put the kibosh on it.

你会看到像最近的密苏里州案件这样的案例，你会看到建立新的选区重新划分计划的努力被州法律宣告无效，你会看到包括国家层面的共和党人在内的许多人说，“不，我们实际上希望制定这张新地图”，而最高法院则否决了它。

And they said that precisely because this is a state court issue, a state law issue, and we’re not gonna intervene at this particular point.

他们说，正是因为这是一个州法院问题，一个州法律问题，我们不会在这个特定时刻进行干预。

Elaine, you have studied both elections and the workings of various bureaucracies for a long time.

伊莱恩，您对选举和各种官僚机构的运作研究了很长时间。

I’m curious how you view these shifts, what other kind of issues that you think should be put on the table in terms of access to the ballot here, and what voters may be making of all this.

我很好奇您如何看待这些转变，您认为在参与投票方面还应该讨论哪些其他问题，以及选民对这一切有何看法。

I think one of the fears is that with all of this change in litigation, voters themselves may be confused about what they are supposed to do.

我认为担忧之一是，随着诉讼中的所有这些变化，选民自己可能会对自己应该做什么感到困惑。

I think the thing to remember here is, and you’re gonna think this is an odd segue, Obamacare, and the crashing of the websites.

我认为这里要记住的是，你会认为这是一个奇怪的延续，奥巴马医改和网站崩溃。

Okay?

好的？

Any time you try a massive computer-generated shift like was anticipated in the rule, where suddenly all the state voters was gonna go into a federal depository and they were gonna run it against immigration lists and Social Security numbers, et cetera, and somehow clean up the voting lists, that struck everybody, I think even conservatives, it struck people as, “Oh, no. This is, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

任何时候，当你尝试像规则中预期的那样，由计算机生成的大规模转变时，突然间所有州选民都会进入联邦存托处，他们将根据移民名单和社会保障号码等进行运行，并以某种方式清理投票名单，这让每个人都感到震惊，我想甚至是保守派，它让人们感到震惊，“哦，不。这是一场即将发生的灾难。”

There will be so many mistakes in there.” People changing their name.

里面会有很多错误。”人们改变他们的名字。

How many Jesús Garcias are there in the United States of America?

美利坚合众国有多少个耶稣·加西亚？

Many.

许多。

Okay?

好的？

I mean, the, just to think about the the logistical nightmare this is.

我的意思是，想想这是一场后勤噩梦。

And the Court has something called the Purcell Principle, which, you know, says you shouldn’t go mucking around with big changes in elections too close to the election.

最高法院有一个叫做“珀塞尔原则”的东西，你知道，它说你不应该在选举临近选举时做出重大改变。

One issue that is really central to the actual outcome of this election is mid-decade redistricting.

对这次选举的实际结果真正至关重要的一个问题是十年中期的选区重新划分。

And, you know, there was a fair amount of that back in the 19th century, but for about a century we haven’t done that.

而且，你知道，早在 19 世纪就有相当多的这样的事情，但大约一个世纪以来我们都没有这样做过。

You know, the census comes out, the states draw the lines, and with the exception of Texas back a couple decades ago, states stuck with those lines through the 10 years.

你知道，人口普查出来后，各州就划定了界限，除了几十年前的德克萨斯州之外，其他州在过去的十年里一直坚持这些界限。

This time, President Trump said, “I want you to redistrict in Texas and elsewhere,” and the Republican legislatures in those states responded.

这一次，特朗普总统说，“我希望你们在德克萨斯州和其他地方重新划分选区”，这些州的共和党立法机构做出了回应。

Talk about the impact of this mid-decade redistricting.

谈谈这个十年中期重新划分选区的影响。

It looks to me like there could be as many as nine Republican pickups that would not have happened had this mid-decade redistricting not gone forward.

在我看来，如果没有进行这个十年中期的选区重新划分，可能会有多达九名共和党人当选。

So as many as nine.

多达九个。

It was very powerful, because while the Democrats had some success, they didn’t have as much success as the Republicans did.

它非常强大，因为虽然民主党取得了一些成功，但他们没有共和党取得那么多成功。

I think the second thing that’s gonna be fascinating, and us here at Brookings, we’re gonna be studying this like crazy, is, okay, were the estimates that the Republicans made about the utility of this, were they right?

我认为第二件令人着迷的事情是，我们在布鲁金斯学会，我们将疯狂地研究这个问题，好吧，共和党人对此的效用做出的估计是对的吗？

Already, and you can see this on our Brookings website, already we know that out of the five seats Republicans thought they would pick up in Texas, three of them could possibly lose.

你可以在我们的布鲁金斯学会网站上看到这一点，我们已经知道，共和党人认为他们会在德克萨斯州获得的五个席位中，其中三个可能会失去。

The Republicans could lose.

共和党可能会失败。