---
author: New York Times Podcasts
date: '2026-09-09'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdJ8GpNTY4
speaker: New York Times Podcasts
tags:
  - mail-in-voting
  - executive-order
  - election-integrity
  - judicial-review
title: 特朗普计划借助邮政局限制邮寄投票并引发法律战
summary: 特朗普总统寻求最高法院批准其限制邮寄投票的行政命令，试图将美国邮政局转变为裁定各州邮寄投票资格的机构。下级法院此前裁定其关键内容违法，而最高法院以尚未成熟为由发回，此举在中期选举前引发了选民困惑与司法争议。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: politics-society
area: society-thinking
project: []
people:
  - Donald Trump
  - Nick Corasaniti
  - Michael Barbaro
  - Indira Talwani
companies_orgs:
  - The New York Times
  - United States Postal Service
  - Supreme Court of the United States
products_models: []
media_books:
  - The Daily
status: evergreen
---
<!-- chunk 1/3 -->

这里是《纽约时报》，我是迈克尔·巴尔巴罗。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 这里是《每日新闻》。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> This is The Daily.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

### 特朗普限制邮寄投票的计划

>> 周二，特朗普总统请求最高法院批准他那项大胆的计划，在距离一场利害攸关的中期选举仅剩几周之际限制邮寄投票。

今天，我的同事——

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> On Tuesday, President Trump asked the Supreme Court to bless [music] his audacious plan to restrict voting by mail just weeks before a high-stakes midterm election.

Today, my colleague,
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 尼克·科拉萨尼蒂带我们深入了解特朗普的这项计划、由此引发的法律战，以及它给全美各地的地方选举官员和选民带来的不确定性。

[音乐]

今天是9月9日，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Nick Corasaniti, takes us inside Trump's plan, the legal [music] battle that it's touched off, and the uncertainty that it's created for both local election officials and voters across the country.

[music]

It's Wednesday,
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 星期三。

尼克，感谢你抽时间接受我们采访。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> September 9th.

Nick, thank you for making time for us.
</details>

>> 呃，谢谢你们邀请我。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Uh, thanks for having me.
</details>

>> 很荣幸。

那么，看一眼日历，我相信，在少数几个州，距离今年中期选举正式开始提前投票只有几天时间了。

我认为，很多听众理所当然地对邮寄选票的现状感到困惑，因为总统所采取的行动，以及这些行动在法院陷入纠纷的程度，邮寄选票已经成为全美很多人投票的重要途径。所以，你能不能从宏观层面解释一下我们目前所处的处境？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> My pleasure.

So, looking at the calendar, we are, I believe, just days away in a few states from the official beginning of early voting in this year's midterm elections.

And I think, rightfully, a lot of our listeners are confused about the state of mail-in ballots, which have become a huge way that a lot of the country votes because of the actions that have been taken by the president and how much they've become tied up in the courts. So, can you just explain the situation that we are in at a very high level?
</details>

>> 没问题。还有一点，顺便提一下，提前投票在某种意义上已经开始了。周五，北卡罗来纳州和特拉华州已经开始寄出邮寄选票。所以，就在我们说话的这一刻，已经有选票正在寄往选民的路上。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Absolutely. And one thing, really quick, is that early voting, in a way, has already begun. On Friday, North Carolina and Delaware started sending out mail ballots. So, there are ballots that are on their way to voters, as we speak.
</details>

>> 它们已经在系统里了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> They're in the system.
</details>

>> 它们已经在系统里了。它们要么正在由邮政局处理，要么可能已经送达了。但是，我们目前所处的局势，倒不是要反复使用“史无前例”这个词，而是我们确实从未见过的局面，那就是总统和行政部门试图利用一个机构——在这个案例中是美国邮政局——来改变选举的运作方式。

这源于总统今年早些时候签署的一项行政命令，该命令试图限制邮寄投票，基本上把邮政局变成了裁定哪些州可以举行邮寄投票的仲裁者。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> They're in the system. They're either being processed by the Postal Service, or maybe they already arrived. But, where we are in this moment is not to repeatedly use the phrase unprecedented but something that we've never seen before, which is the president and the executive branch seeking to leverage an agency, in this case the United States Postal Service, to change how elections are run.

And this stems from an executive order that the president signed earlier this year seeking to restrict mail voting. And basically turning the Postal Service into an arbiter of which states can have mail voting.
</details>

>> 把邮政局——我们通常认为它是我们选举系统中某种中立的角色，切实地将选票递送给需要的人，然后再送回选举办公室——变成一个有权决定你的投票最终是否算数的机构。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Turning the Postal Service, which we usually think of as a kind of a neutral player in our election system, literally the people who carry the votes to the people who need them and then bring them back to the election offices, turning that into an organization that gets to decide if your vote ever counts.
</details>

>> 或者至少有权决定你是否能够投出那一票。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Or at least gets to decide whether you can cast your vote.
</details>

>> 嗯。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Mhm.
</details>

>> 决定一个州究竟能否进行邮寄投票，或者一个选民能否收到自己的邮寄选票，在距离选举如此之近的时候，把这个机构变成了这种带有党派色彩的政治操盘手。这确实是我们以前没见过的，尤其是在过去十年里，邮寄投票对美国很大一部分选民来说已经变得如此至关重要。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Whether a state can have mail voting at all or whether a voter is able to receive their mail ballot, turning this agency into this kind of partisan political operator so close to an election. It's just something we haven't seen, especially in the past decade with mail voting becoming so critical to a large part of the American electorate.
</details>

>> 在如今后疫情时代，邮寄投票到底有多关键？我知道当时邮寄投票出现过大幅增长。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Just how critical is mail-in voting at this point post-pandemic when I know there was a major increase in mail-in voting.
</details>

>> 是的，疫情可以说是改变了一切。虽然邮寄投票的比例不及2020年时的水平，但在2024年的选举中，仍有近30%的美国人通过邮寄方式投票。这相当于数以千万计的选民。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Yeah, it the pandemic kind of changed everything and while mail voting isn't at the same clip that it was in 2020, still nearly 30% of Americans cast a ballot by mail in the 2024 elections. Now, that's tens of millions of voters.
</details>

>> 没错。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Right.
</details>

>> 有八个州的选举几乎完全通过邮寄进行。所以，有大量美国人的投票，可以说，都深度卷入了这件事情。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> There's eight states that conduct their elections almost entirely by mail. So, there's a large amount of Americans whose votes, you know, are very much wrapped up in this.
</details>

>> 尼克，关于总统在此次中期选举中插手邮政局在邮寄选票上角色的动机，有没有一种正确的理解方式？是不是就纯粹是他在试图为共和党人在这次选举中谋取政治优势？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> And Nick, is there a right way to think about the president's motivation here for mucking around with the role of the Postal Service when it comes to mail-in ballots in this midterm election, simply that he's seeking political advantage for Republicans in this election.
</details>

>> 我是说，总统本人就曾说过，如果能限制邮寄投票或者限制这些邮寄选票，就会有助于共和党获胜。所以，他在这点上表达得非常明确。

但他在近十年的大部分时间里，也一直对邮寄投票抱有怀疑。

2016年我和他一起在科罗拉多州，当时他在一场竞选活动上扯开话题，对该州的邮寄投票流程提出质疑，而那个州的选举大部分都是通过邮寄进行的。

随后，[嗤笑] 在他在2020年败选之后——当时大批民主党人为了在疫情期间安全投票而选择邮寄投票——总统将其归咎为自己落败的原因。从那以后，他就一直执迷于这种在没有任何证据的情况下、认为邮寄投票充斥着欺诈的想法。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> I mean, the president himself has said if we can limit mail voting or restrict these mail ballots, then that'll help Republicans win. So, he's been very explicit about this.

But, he's also doubted mail voting for the better part of a decade.

I was with him in Colorado in 2016 where he went on a tangent at a campaign event casting doubt on the mail voting process in that state, a state that conducts its elections mostly by mail.

And then, [snorts] following his loss in 2020 where scores of Democrats chose to vote by mail to vote safely in the pandemic, the president blamed it for his loss. And ever since then, he's been obsessed with this idea without any evidence that mail voting is rife with fraud.
</details>

### 行政命令的具体内容与机制

>> 那么，请具体解释一下，在总统试图改变邮政局在本次中期选举中的角色方面，我们在后勤上具体进展到了哪一步，以及他的所有举措在法律上又处于什么状态？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Well, just explain exactly where we are logistically in the president's attempts to change the role of the Postal Service in these midterm elections, and where all his efforts stand legally.
</details>

>> 要准确理解我们目前所处的位置，我们必须回到去年。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> To understand exactly where we're at, we have to go back to last year.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 总统显然意识到中期选举的局势正在脱离他的掌控。政治层面上有很多对特朗普总统不利的因素：顽固且居高不下的通胀；美国各大城市对移民与海关执法局突击搜查的反弹；司法部带来的余波仍在持续。于是，他开始寻找不同途径，利用其职权范围内的所有不同机构，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> The president is clearly realizing that the midterms are moving away from him. There's a lot going on politically against President Trump. Stubborn and rising inflation. There was backlash against [music] ICE raids happening in American cities. Reverberations still from DOJ. And so, he starts looking at different ways to leverage all the different agencies within his power,
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 无论是司法部还是国土安全部。他在利用所有这些来影响选举。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> whether that's the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security. He's using all of these to shape the elections.
</details>

>> 好的，非常感谢大家。这是一次安排好的会议。为你们感到非常骄傲。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Well, thank you very much. This was a meeting set up. Very proud of you.
</details>

>> 时间推进到三月，邮政局就在这时登场了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> forward to March, and that's where the Postal Service comes into play.
</details>

>> 因为邮寄投票中的作弊现象是……是众所周知的。正在发生的事情太可怕了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Because the cheating on mail-in voting is is legendary. It's horrible what's going on.
</details>

>> 白宫宣布，特朗普总统将对邮政局与选举系统的互动方式做出重大改变。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> The White House announces that President Trump [music] will be making big changes to the way that the Postal Service interacts with the election system.
</details>

>> 那么，鉴于这一切，我非常高兴能够签署关于选民诚信的命令，我认为这将会非常棒。所以，如果你们不介意的话，我需要花点时间，把这个签名签得绝对完美。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> So, with all of that, I'm very happy to be signing the voter integrity, and I think it's going to be really great. So, if you don't mind, I will take some time, and I'll make this signature absolutely perfect.
</details>

>> 他签署了一项涉及邮寄投票诸多事项的行政命令。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> He signs an executive order that does a host of things regarding mail voting.
</details>

>> 到目前为止还算顺利。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> So far, so good.
</details>

>> [笑声]

[音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [laughter]

[music]
</details>

>> 那么，这项行政命令中最重要的两个部分赋予了邮政局在邮寄投票中发挥极其决定性作用的权力。第一部分设定了一些选票设计、信封设计和条形码设计方面的规定，这些规定极其严格，会要求一些州和一些县重新设计选票。而且，该设计中的任何错误，甚至条形码与选民之间的匹配出现任何错误，都可能导致成千上万的选民无法收到选票。所以，这里赋予了邮政局相当关键的仲裁权力。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> So, the two most important parts of this executive order empower the Postal Service to play a really decisive role in mail voting. Now, the first part sets some ballot design and envelope design and barcode design regulations that are extremely strict and would require some states and some counties to redesign their ballots. And then also, any errors in that design, or even in those matches between a barcode and a voter, could result in thousands of voters not getting their ballots. So, there's pretty critical powers being given to the Postal Service as an arbiter here.
</details>

>> 好，所以第一部分是关于选票设计的，按你的说法，这确实可能会产生很大影响，但似乎并不是这项计划的核心。那么，这项行政命令的第二个要素是什么？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Okay, so the first part of this is about ballot design, which from what you're saying, could very much have an impact, but doesn't seem like the heart of this plan. So, what is the second element of this executive order?
</details>

>> 嗯，第二个要素确实就是其核心所在，或者至少是人们谈论得最多的内容。具体来说，就是要求各州上传有资格进行邮寄投票的选民名单。然后他们必须把这份名单上传到一个由邮政局创建并维护的门户网站。

而且只有那些在各州名单上的选民才能收到邮寄选票。因此，邮政局将行政命令的那部分内容解读为：如果一个州不上传其数据，那么他们就完全无法进行邮寄投票。这意味着如果一个州不照办并上传其选民数据，就不会寄出任何邮寄选票。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Well, the second element really is the heart of it, or it's at least the thing that people are talking about the most. And what it is is a requirement that states upload lists of voters who will be eligible to vote by mail. And then they'd have to upload this list to a portal that would be created by and maintained by the Postal Service.

And only those voters on those state lists could receive a mail ballot. So, the Postal Service interprets that part of the executive order to mean that if a state doesn't upload their data, then they will get no mail voting. That means no mail-in ballots will go out if a state doesn't comply and upload their voter data.
</details>

>> 哇，换句话说，要么顺从，要么你所在州大约三分之一的投票途径就会在今年的中期选举中彻底被抹去。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Wow, in other words, comply or something like a third of the way people in your state vote is just obliterated from this year's midterms.
</details>

>> 是的，全国三分之一的投票途径，各州情况有所不同，但是……而且你知道，在某些州，这涉及整个选举，对吧？在像科罗拉多州或华盛顿州这样实行邮寄投票的州。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Yeah, a third of the way the country varies state to state, but and you know, in some states this is the entire election, right? In a mail voting state like Colorado or Washington.
</details>

>> 没错。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Right.
</details>

>> 他们会有大麻烦。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> They'd be in a lot of trouble.
</details>

### 各州反弹与法律交锋

>> 暂且抛开总统想在这次选举中为共和党人创造结构性优势的意图，你认为，就这项行政命令的这两个要素——尤其是针对这些州选民名册的规定——从理论上能提出什么样的论据？我是说，总统身边的人会不会说，这是确保只有合格选民才能投票的一种相当有效的方式？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Putting aside for just a moment the president's desire to create structural advantages for Republicans in this election, what theoretical case could be made for the two elements of this executive order, especially for these state voter rolls, do you think? I mean, would those around the president say that this is a pretty effective way to make sure that only eligible voters vote?
</details>

>> 一点没错。他们声称这是选举诚信举措，旨在查出美国选举中的欺诈行为，即便这种情况极其、极其罕见。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> That's exactly right. They're claiming this is election integrity measures seeking to ferret out fraud in American elections, even if it is exceptionally exceptionally rare.
</details>

>> 明白了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Got it.
</details>

>> 但各州强烈反对这种说法。你知道，有24个全部由民主党控制的州几乎立即提起了诉讼，称这是一种越权行为，是一种

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> But the states vehemently disagree with that assessment. There's, you know, 24 states all controlled by Democrats who pretty much immediately sued saying that this was a overreach, a
</details>

<!-- chunk 2/3 -->

夺权，并试图把……你知道的，把政治和党派之争强行塞进美国选举的管理中。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
power grab, and attempting to inject, you know, politics and and partisanship into the administration of American elections.
</details>

而且他们指出了这里非常重要的一点：宪法赋予行政部门——包括总统在内——对选举的明确权力是零。选举的时间、地点和方式是由各州来负责管理的。国会固然可以通过选举法律来取代州法律，但也就仅此而已了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And they're pointing to something that's very important to remember here. The Constitution grants the executive branch, which includes the president, zero explicit authority over elections. It is left to the states to administer the time, place, and manner of elections. Now, Congress can pass election law that could supersede that, but that's it.
</details>

>> 他们认为，从法律层面上讲，这完全超出了行政部门的职权范围。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> They say, legally speaking, this is just way out of the executive branches purview.
</details>

>> 没错。这是违宪的。但他们在这里也有非常明确的实际顾虑。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Exactly. It's unconstitutional. But they also have very clear practical concerns here.
</details>

最主要的是，这将要求他们对如何举行选举做出重大改变。而选举本身资金不足，预算紧缺，人手有限。因此，暂且不论政治上的担忧或对联邦政府的不信任，单单是要更换选票、建立新数据库，这里就存在极其巨大的实际限制。这甚至都还没谈到我们在日历上所处的时间节点。所以，在距离选举只剩不到 60 天的情况下，这些州不确定自己能否整理出一份名单、更改选票设计、对他们举行选举的方式做出所有这些改变。这种事情根本就没人能做到。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Primarily, this would require significant changes to how they run elections. And elections are underfunded, run on a tight budget with thin staff. So, to change ballots, to create a new database, regardless of the political worries or the distrust of the federal government, there's just extreme practical limitations here. And that's not even getting to where we are in the calendar. So, these states aren't sure they could compile a list, change their ballot design, make all these changes to how they're carrying out an election with less than 60 days to go before it. That's just not something that's done.
</details>

>> 明白了。同时，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Got it. And at the same time,
</details>

>> 邮政总局甚至连一个面向公众的门户网站都还没有建立起来供他们上传这些名单。因此，从各州的角度来看，他们在政治和政策层面与该行政令存在极大的分歧，但在如此临近选举的时间点让其中的任何一项运作起来，还面临着实际操作上的挑战。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> there's not even a front-facing portal from the Postal Service yet that they could upload these lists into. So, from the states' point of view, they have extreme political and policy level disagreements with it, but there's also the practical challenges of making any of this work this close to an election.
</details>

>> 尼克，这看起来是不是特朗普政府把这些民主党州逼入了一个不可能的绝境？他们明知这些州不会遵守这项行政命令，因此其产生的实际影响就是阻止这些州以民主党为主的选民进行邮寄投票，而这在本次中期选举中对特朗普政府非常有利。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Nick, does it seem like the Trump administration has put these Democratic states into an impossible situation where they know that those states won't comply with this executive order, and therefore its practical impact is to prevent mail-in voting for those states' largely Democratic electorate, which is very advantageous for the Trump administration in these midterms.
</details>

>> 是的，确实完全是这样。正因如此，从这些州的角度来看，才会上演如此紧迫的时间赛跑，试图在法律上理清这件事。在他们看来，这意味着要获得最高法院的一纸裁决，彻底阻止这项行政命令。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Yeah, that that's exactly it. And that's why there's such a race against the clock from these states' point of view to get this matter legally sorted. And in their eyes, that means getting a ruling from the Supreme Court blocking this EO once and for all.
</details>

但他们实际上已经为此抗争了数月。行政命令刚一签署，这些民主党州就提起了诉讼，民主党团体提起了诉讼，投票权团体也提起了诉讼。案子一路打到了最高法院，随后又被打回进行进一步辩论。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
But they've actually been at this for months. As soon as the executive order was signed, these Democratic states sued, Democratic groups sued, voting rights groups sued. It has made its way to the Supreme Court and then come back down for further debate.
</details>

因此，尽管这一法律程序非常缓慢、繁琐且细致，但这些州担心的是，总统及其政府将做出他们一贯为人熟知的举动：突破法律界限、绕过法律程序、打破常规，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And so, while this legal process is very slow and laborious and detailed, what these states are fearing is that the president and his administration are going to do something that they're well known for, racing beyond the legal bounds, going beyond the legal process, breaking through norms,
</details>

>> 嗯。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Mhm.
</details>

>> 并试图在任何法律争议解决之前，尽可能多地落实这项行政命令 [音乐]。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> and trying to implement as much of this executive order [music] as they can before any legal disputes are settled.
</details>

而无论这能否成功，这些州还担心，仅仅是这场争斗本身，就已经在其选民中引发了困惑与混乱，让他们摸不清自己的邮寄选票到底算不算数。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And whether that's successful or not, these states are also fearing that the mere fight is creating confusion and chaos among their voters about whether their mail-in ballots will count.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 我们马上回来。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> We'll be right back.
</details>

### 法律纠纷与司法交锋

>> 尼克，你提到针对该行政命令的法律挑战，以及试图将邮政总局介入中期选举的做法，已经在整个法院系统中几经辗转。但是，我们之所以还在讨论这个话题并制作这期节目，是因为法院尚未就这一切给出最终判决。那么，他们究竟说了什么？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Nick, you said that the legal challenges against this executive order and the effort to insert the postal service into the midterm elections has already gone up and down the court system. But, the reason we're still talking about this and doing this episode is because the courts haven't rendered a final verdict on any of this. So, what exactly have they said?
</details>

>> 这项行政命令，比我在过去 7 年报道过的大多数投票法律诉讼，都更像是一部法律肥皂剧。该行政命令是在 3 月下旬签署的。民主党人和投票权团体很快就提起了诉讼。但直到 6 月下旬，我们才从马萨诸塞州的一家联邦法院得到了第一项重大裁决。该法官推翻了该行政命令的几个关键组成部分，称它们是非法的、完全无效的。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> So, this executive order, more than most voting challenges I've covered in the past 7 years, has really been a legal soap opera. So, the executive order is signed in late March. The Democrats and voting rights groups, they sue pretty quickly. But, it takes until late June for us to get our first significant decision out of a federal court in Massachusetts. And that judge knocks down a few key components of this executive order, saying they were unlawful, null, and void.
</details>

>> 好。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Okay.
</details>

>> 这位名叫英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼（Indira Talwani）的法官特别强调了这一观点：正如我们前面所说，宪法并未赋予总统任何选举权力。她在裁决中明确指出了这一点，并给“并未”（does not）这两个词划了下划线。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> And this judge, Indira Talwani, specifically focuses on this idea that the Constitution doesn't give the president any electoral powers, as we said earlier. And she says this explicitly in her ruling, underlining the words does not.
</details>

>> 基本上，她赞同了各州传达的诉求。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Basically, she endorses the state's message.
</details>

>> 百分之百赞同。这对这项行政命令来说是第一记重击。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> 100%. And that is a first blow to this executive order.
</details>

特朗普政府随即对该裁决提出上诉，但他们初次上诉败诉了。于是，他们首次将其提交至最高法院。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Now, the Trump administration immediately appeals that decision, but they lose their first appeal. So, then they bring it before the Supreme Court for the first time.
</details>

许多法律观察人士认为，鉴于双方的论点，以及下级法院明确裁定总统和行政部门对选举没有任何权力，最高法院很可能会赞同下级法院的意见。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
A lot of legal observers thought that the Supreme Court would probably agree with the lower courts, just given what the arguments were and how explicit their ruling was that the president and the executive branch has no authority over elections.
</details>

>> 对。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Right.
</details>

>> 但事实并非如此。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> But that's not what happens.
</details>

最高法院审视后表示：

“这项规则尚未落实。该门户网站并不存在，这些名单也不存在。这并不属于所谓适于诉讼的成熟状态（ripe for litigation）。所以，他们实际上允许该规则继续推进，并表示我们并不是在就实质问题进行裁决，我们不是说这合法。但我们要说的是，针对提起诉讼的这些州或这些投票权团体，尚未造成足以让我们做出判决的实质损害。”因此，这又把案件一路打回了马萨诸塞州的联邦法院。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
The Supreme Court looks at this and says, "This rule hasn't been implemented yet. This portal doesn't exist, these lists don't exist. This isn't what they call ripe for litigation. So, they actually permit the rule to continue, saying we're not ruling on the merits, we're not saying this is lawful. But what we are saying is, there is not enough that has been done to harm these states or these voting rights groups that are suing in order for us to render a verdict." So, that kicks it all the way back to the federal court in Massachusetts.
</details>

>> 没错。如果我能插一句的话，最高法院裁决真正引人注目的地方在于，无论你认为它在法律上是否站得住脚，这基本上是最高法院在说：特朗普政府需要获得机会，将把邮政总局置于本次中期选举核心的这一尝试推向深入——尽管我们距离中期选举本身已经如此之近——唯有这样，它才能演变成最高法院能够出具确定性裁决的那类案件。这实在令人感到意外。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Right. If I can jump in, what was really striking about the Supreme Court ruling is, no matter what you think about whether it was legally sound, it was basically the high court saying that the Trump administration needs to be given a chance to take this experiment of putting the postal service at the center of these midterms further, despite the fact that we're already so close to the midterms themselves, in order for this to become the kind of case that the Supreme Court can issue a definitive ruling in. And that was just surprising.
</details>

>> 确实。我想这让很多州以及很多选举法律观察人士颇感意外。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Exactly. That caught, I think, a lot states and a lot of election legal observers somewhat by surprise.
</details>

所以，在法律层面上，这让我们回到了 6 月份的处境，面对马萨诸塞州的一名联邦法官。而大多数州对这长达数月的诉讼战的理解是：一切都冻结了，该行政命令没有任何推进。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
So, legally, that brings us back to where we were in June, before a federal judge in Massachusetts. And what most states understood this entire months-long litigation battle to mean was that everything was frozen. There was no development going on for the executive order.
</details>

>> 明白了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Got it.
</details>

>> 与此同时，一名邮政总局官员以事实上的举报人身份向一名民主党国会议员站了出来，提供了两条关键信息。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Now, meanwhile, a Postal Service official came forward to a Democratic member of Congress effectively as a whistleblower with two key pieces of information.
</details>

第一条是，实际上数月以来，邮政总局一直在持续搭建处于这场法律纠纷核心的那个门户网站。因此，尽管各州可能以为禁令意味着什么都没有发生，但事实上，邮政总局内部一直在推进这项工作。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Now, the first was that the Postal Service has actually been continuing to build the very portal at the core of this legal back and forth for months. So, while states might have assumed that the injunction meant nothing was happening, in fact, there was work being done within the Postal Service.
</details>

接着他指出的第二点是，正在进行的这项工作并不完全符合技术标准，被称为草率或粗制滥造。因此，如果这个系统真的被推行实施，可能会在中期选举的邮寄投票中造成更多的混乱、困惑和问题。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And then the second point that he makes is that this work that was being done wasn't exactly up to technical standards. It was called sloppy or shoddy. And so, there could be, were this to be implemented, even more chaos and confusion and problems with mail-in voting in the midterm election.
</details>

>> 是的。你刚才说的关键词是“如果这个系统真的被推行实施”。为了把进度拉回到我们此时此刻的现状——也就是我们说话的周二下午——

特朗普政府正恳请最高法院再次接手审理此事，但这一次要做出更为明确的定论，给出一个确凿的说法，说明邮政总局到底能否扮演行政命令所设想的这一角色。所以，尼克，根据你以及我们跑最高法院的同事所了解到的情况，我们预计最高法院可能会怎么做？我们认为最高法院多快会介入表态？而这对于我们在此讨论的一切又意味着什么？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Right. And the operative words that you just said were if this were to be implemented. And just to bring us up to where we are right now, as we speak on Tuesday afternoon, the Trump administration is pleading with the Supreme Court to take up this matter once again, but this time to be much more definitive and to say one way or another whether or not the Postal Service can play this role envisioned by the executive order. So, Nick, based on what you and our colleagues who cover the Supreme Court have come to understand, what do we think the high court is likely to do? How quickly do we think the Supreme Court's going to weigh in? And what is it going to mean for everything we're talking about here?
</details>

>> 嗯，我们预计法院会很快做出裁决，但或许不会立刻做出。他们已要求在周三下午之前提交辩护状。因此，他们不会在周三下午之前做出裁决。现在，他们和我们任何人都一样清楚，中期选举正在迅速逼近。各州马上就要寄出邮寄选票了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Well, we expect the court to rule quickly, but perhaps not immediately. They've asked for briefs to be filed by Wednesday afternoon. So, they're not going to rule before Wednesday afternoon. Now, they know as well as any of us that the midterm elections are fast approaching. States are about to send out mail ballots.
</details>

>> 如果他们还没寄出的话，对吧？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> If they haven't already, right?
</details>

>> 没错，如果他们还没寄出的话。有些州已经寄了，有些州下周会寄。

因此，我们确实预计裁决会相对较快地出台。

现在，与我交谈过的许多法律专家都指出，宪法明确规定总统对选举没有任何明确权力。正因这种明确性，

他们认为极不可能的是……

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Exactly, if they haven't already. Some have and some will next week. So, we do expect a ruling to come somewhat quickly. Now, a lot of legal experts I've spoken to point to clarity in the Constitution that the president has no explicit authority over elections. And because of that clarity, they think it's very unlikely that the
</details>

<!-- chunk 3/3 -->

最高法院会支持特朗普政府，并允许这项行政命令生效。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration and allow this executive order to go into effect.
</details>

>> 明白了。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Got it.
</details>

>> 但跟我交谈过的少数人提醒我，本届最高法院此前也曾作出过有利于扩大行政权力的裁决，特别是针对这位总统。因此，他们并不一定是在保证最高法院会如何裁决，但回顾几十年来的诉讼以及选举法中的明确规定，他们预计最高法院会基于实质理据驳回这项行政命令。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> But a few that I spoke to reminded me that this Supreme Court has also ruled in favor of expanding executive authority, especially for this president. So, they're not necessarily guaranteeing how the Supreme Court would rule, but looking at decades of litigation and clarity in election law, they expect the Supreme Court to reject this executive order on the merits.
</details>

>> 那么，尼克，我不禁想到，在大家等待最高法院这一最终裁决的同时，地方选举官员难免会有些紧张，而那些正在申请邮寄选票或已经拿到选票的选民，也都在试图弄清楚该拿这些选票怎么办。目前的讨论情况是怎样的？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> So, Nick, I have to imagine as everyone waits for this final word from the Supreme Court that local election officials are getting a little bit nervous and voters who are requesting mail-in ballots or already have them are trying to figure out what to do with them. What is that conversation looking like?
</details>

>> 过去几周我交谈过的几乎每一位地方选举官员——包括民主党人和共和党人——都描述了他们正在努力维持的这种微妙平衡。首先是提醒选民，截至目前一切维持现状。邮寄选票会照常寄出，你可以寄回它们。选举的运作方式没有任何改变。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Nearly every local election official I've spoken to over the past few weeks, and that includes Democrats and Republicans, have described this kind of delicate dance that they're trying to pull off. And the first is reminding voters that as of now, it is status quo. Mail ballots will go out, you can return them. There is no change to how elections are run.
</details>

但他们也在努力让选民为可能出现的各种情况做好准备。因此，目前正在进行相当大规模的选民宣教工作，提醒选民并不一定非要通过邮寄方式寄回选票。如果所在州允许，你可以把选票送回给当地选举官员，或者如果所在州允许，也可以使用投递箱。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
But they're also trying to prepare them for any kind of eventuality. So, there's this pretty big voter education effort going on, reminding voters that you don't necessarily have to return your mail ballot in the mail. You could bring it back to your local election official if the state allows, or use a drop box if the state allows.
</details>

所以，他们正努力与选民沟通，切合他们所关切的问题，同时也向他们普及选举进程目前的确切状况，以及这些选民可以做些什么。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
So, they're trying to talk to voters and meet them where they are on their concerns, while also educating them of exactly where the election process is and what these voters can do.
</details>

>> 嗯。在绝大多数地方，如果人们对邮政系统在某种程度上失去了信任，大多数地方是否有足够的投递箱来应对大量选票突然涌入该系统的情况？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Mhm. For the most part, do most places have sufficient drop boxes to handle a large sudden infusion of ballots into that system if people have in any way lost faith in the mail system?
</details>

>> 某些州当然有，但其他州限制了投递箱的使用。因此，它们可能无法满足增加的需求。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Some states certainly do, but other states have restricted drop boxes. So, they might not be able to meet an increased demand.
</details>

我认为在幕后，这些地方选举官员之间正在进行大量的应急规划。他们开始考虑，好吧，如果我们确实需要增加投递箱该怎么办？如果我们必须调整办公时间该怎么办？如果我们必须设立临时投票中心，或者其他供人们进行现场投票的地点该怎么办？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And what's happening, I think, behind the scenes a lot with these local election officials is a lot of contingency planning. They're starting to think, okay, what if we do need to increase drop boxes? What if we need to change our office hours? What if we need to create pop-up voting centers, other places that people could cast an in-person ballot?
</details>

这既是为了应对这项行政命令成为法律这一潜在的——尽管可能性不大——情况，也是为了应对选民当下的情绪感受。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Just to deal with the potential, although unlikely, eventuality that this executive order becomes law, but also just to deal with how voters are feeling right now.
</details>

>> 那么根据你的报道，选民现在的情绪如何？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> And how are voters feeling right now based on your reporting?
</details>

>> 从与我交谈过的选民来看，对邮寄投票过程普遍存在困惑，甚至怀疑。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> There is pretty universal confusion, if not doubt, in the mail voting process from voters that I've talked to.
</details>

看看我的收件箱就知道了。每当我撰写一篇报道，我都会收到读者的来信，他们通常对文章中讨论的政治问题表示赞同或反对。但在过去几周里，情况发生了变化。选民们只是告诉我他们住在哪里，并询问他们是否能够通过邮寄方式投票。这就是目前所产生的困惑程度。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And you could just look at my inbox. Whenever I write a story, I hear from readers either agreeing or disagreeing often with the politics discussed. But over the past few weeks, that's changed. Voters are simply telling me where they live and asking if they'll be able to vote by mail. That's the degree of confusion that has set in right now.
</details>

>> 他们就像是说，我完全不知道发生了什么。所以，尼克，你告诉我邮寄投票系统对我来说还能不能用。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> They're just like, I have no idea what's going on. So, so Nick, you tell me whether the mail-in system is going to be working for me.
</details>

>> 没错。就是这样，附上我的所在地。我读了这些报道，但我不太清楚到底是怎么回事。这种困惑既出现在刚接触邮寄选票的选民中，也出现在一生都通过邮寄投票的人当中。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Exactly. It's just here's my location. I've read these stories. I don't exactly follow what's going on. And that confusion is happening in voters who are new to mail in ballots, as well as those who have voted by mail for their entire lives.
</details>

>> 我很好奇你对这些给你发邮件的人作何回应。我是说，告诉大家该如何处理他们的邮寄选票并不是你的职责，但只要你有时间回复，你会说些什么？

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> I am curious what you say in response to these folks who email you. I mean, it's not your job to tell people what to do with their mail in ballots, but in so far as you do have the time to respond, what do you say?
</details>

>> 我能告诉他们的是，法律规定你现在可以通过邮寄投票。因此，在法律上没有任何阻碍阻止任何给我发邮件的人投票，只要他们是符合资格的选民，就可以投出邮寄选票。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> I mean, what I can tell them is that the law says you can vote by mail right now. And so there is nothing legally preventing anyone who's emailed me, as long as they're an eligible voter, from casting a mail ballot.
</details>

但他们仍然必须关注新闻，看看是否会有任何变化。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
But they still are going to have to pay attention to the news and to see if anything changes.
</details>

>> 尼克，归根结底很难不得出这样的结论：这项行政命令以及总统迄今为止所做的一切，属于那种无论正反特朗普都赢的局面，我的意思是，无论在法律层面上最终结果如何，无论最高法院的最终裁决是什么，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Nick, it's hard ultimately not to conclude that this executive order and what the president has done so far is one of those heads Trump wins, tails Trump wins kind of scenarios, by which I mean no matter how this ends up legally, no matter what the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling is,
</details>

总统已经在这个国家一种主要的投票方式上制造了巨大的焦虑和不确定性，而且是在[嗤笑]距离选举本身如此惊人地接近的时刻。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
the president has created a huge amount of anxiety and uncertainty about a major way that we vote in this country so, [snorts] so startlingly close to the election itself.
</details>

>> 没错。如果这项行政命令的目标、或者目标之一是限制邮寄投票，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Exactly. If the goal, or one of the goals, of this executive order was to limit mail voting,
</details>

很明显他们都将取得成功，无论最高法院如何裁决，因为有足够多的选民因法律上的来回拉锯，以及他们从举报人那里了解到的关于邮寄投票过程的情况而感到担忧。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
it's pretty clear that they're going to succeed, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, because there are enough voters who are concerned by the legal back and forth, by what they've learned from whistleblowers, about the mail voting process.
</details>

这也契合了特朗普总统多年来所展开的更大规模行动。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And it fits into a larger effort that President Trump has embarked on for years now.
</details>

当选举结果不符合这位总统的心意时，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
When elections don't go the president's way,
</details>

你，他质疑选举结果是否能够获得认证。他们提出了向选举人团派出替代或虚假选举人的想法。没错。1月6日因副总统认证选举而在国会大厦发生了暴乱。任何特朗普政府的被提名人都必须遵循一套相当复杂的既定说法，不能说乔·拜登赢得了2020年大选。他们只能说他被认证为总统。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
you You he challenged whether elections could be certified. They came up with this idea of alternate or fake electors to the Electoral College. Right. There was the riot at the Capitol in January 6th over his vice president certifying the election. Any of the nominees of the Trump administration have to stick to this fairly convoluted script of not saying Joe Biden won the 2020 election. They can only say that he was certified as president.
</details>

因此，存在着这样一段历史，存在着对选举产生[音乐]怀疑的根基。有多年的证据表明存在着大胆的计谋，存在着旨在动摇[音乐]对支撑了这个国家250年的民主制度本身信任的言论。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And so there's a history, there's a bedrock of [music] doubting elections. There are years of evidence of audacious schemes, of rhetoric designed [music] to crack trust in the very democratic institutions that have upheld this country for 250 years.
</details>

而这项提交到最高[音乐]法院、影响邮寄投票的行政命令，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
And this executive order that is before the Supreme [music] Court affecting mail voting
</details>

只不过是进一步削弱对我们选举进程信任的最新且可能是[音乐]成功的尝试。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
is just the latest and possibly [music] successful attempt at further eroding trust in our electoral process.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 好吧，尼克，非常感谢你。[音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Well, Nick, thank you very much. [music]
</details>

>> 感谢邀请我。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Thanks for having me.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 你可以在《纽约时报》应用上阅读更多来自尼克·科拉萨尼蒂等记者的报道。如果你还没有这款应用，我们想通知你，如果你现在下载，就能[音乐]免费获得1个月阅读我们全部新闻报道的权限。不妨一试。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> You can read more from reporters like Nick Corasaniti on the New York Times app. If you don't already have the app, we wanted to let you know that if you download it right now, you'll get access [music] to all of our journalism free for 1 month. So, give it a try.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 我们马上回来。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> We'll be right back.
</details>

### 今日其他要闻

>> 以下是今天你还需要

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Here's what else you need
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 了解的其他消息。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> to know today.
</details>

>> 长期以来，英国政府一直正确地指出定居点是非法的，但我们对整个占领本身的合法性问题一直保持沉默。今天我宣布，英国政府的官方立场是，该占领是[音乐]非法的。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Now, for a long time, the British government has rightly said settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole. Today I announce that the official view of the British government is that the occupation is [music] unlawful.
</details>

>> 周二，加拿大、法国和英国政府宣布对约旦河西岸被占领土上的以色列定居点实施制裁。这一协调一致的[音乐]谴责反映了以色列在国际舞台上日益加深的孤立。在议会发表讲话时，[音乐]英国外交大臣埃德·米利班德谴责了西岸定居者的行径，他们一再暴力袭击巴勒斯坦人[音乐]，有时甚至逍遥法外。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> On Tuesday, the governments of Canada, France, and the United Kingdom announced sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. A coordinated [music] rebuke that reflects Israel's deepening isolation on the world stage. In a speech before parliament, [music] British Foreign Minister Ed Miliband denounced the behavior of West Bank settlers who have violently attacked Palestinians [music] over and over again, at times with impunity.
</details>

>> 英国政府认同，在约旦河西岸部分地区存在着针对巴勒斯坦人的种族清洗，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 由定居者恐怖分子所实施。而以色列政府往往对此视而不[音乐]见，并且——

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank perpetrated by settler terrorists. And all too often, the Israeli government has turned a blind [music] eye to this and what
</details>

>> 以色列政府对这些制裁反应强烈，

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> Israel's government reacted to the sanctions with fury,
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 表示将关闭代表英国政府在耶路撒冷、加沙和被占领约旦河西岸的领事馆。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> saying that it would shut down the consulate that represents the British government in Jerusalem, Gaza, and the occupied West Bank.
</details>

>> [音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> [music]
</details>

>> 此外，周二两项相互冲突的法院裁决使密苏里州的国会选举陷入[音乐]混乱。首先，最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺驳回了密苏里州官员使用一份旨在使共和党受益的重划国会选区地图的[音乐]请求。不久之后，密苏里州的一位地方法院法官[音乐]反其道而行之，作出了相反裁决，命令该州必须采用那份重绘的选区地图。[音乐]这两项裁决加在一起，让密苏里州在11月究竟使用哪份[音乐]选区地图上无法达成一致，并且也没有立刻化解这一困惑的途径。[音乐]

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
>> And two conflicting court orders on Tuesday have thrown congressional races in [music] Missouri into chaos. First, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected a [music] request from Missouri officials to use a congressional map that was redrawn to benefit Republicans. Soon after, a district court judge in Missouri [music] turned around and voted the other way, ordering the state to rely on that redrawn map. [music] Taken together, the two orders leave Missouri with no agreement about which [music] map to use in November and no immediate way to resolve the confusion. [music]
</details>

本期节目由卡洛斯·普列托、[音乐]里奇·纽比和莱克西·迪奥制作，德文·泰勒负责编辑。包含来自阿莉莎·埃图普、[音乐]丹·鲍威尔和帕特·麦卡斯克的音乐，由阿莉莎·莫克斯利完成工程制作。我们的主题音乐由[音乐] Wonderly 创作。本期《每日新闻》[音乐]就到这里。我是梅根·利伯曼。明天见。

<details><summary>Original English</summary>
Today's episode was produced by Carlos [music] Prieto, Ricky Newby, and Lexi Diao. It was edited by Devon Taylor. Contains music by Alisha [music] Etoop, Dan Powell, and Pat McCusker, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is [music] by Wonderly. That's it for [music] The Daily. I'm Megan Liberman. See you tomorrow.
</details>