How the conservative Supreme Court has rewritten the rules for the midterms

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

Voters will pick the winners of next month’s midterm elections, but it is the conservative Supreme Court that has set the rules.

Long before early voting got underway to decide control of Congress, the court exerted an unusually profound impact on the election with a series of decisions that have reshaped redistricting, campaign finance regulations, efforts to identify noncitizen voters and mail voting – frequently in a way that has benefited Republicans.

Some of those decisions received little attention, like the court’s ruling this month that cleared the way for political parties – and particularly, Republicans – to pour millions more into television advertising in tight races. Others were more notable, like the 6-3 ruling in April that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act’s power to protect minority voters , and prompted a new round of redistricting in Republican-led states.

Various rulings have exposed tensions among the justices that spilled into public view .

“The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should,” Justice Elena Kagan said at an event on Tuesday in a remarkably frank critique of the court’s actions.

Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

Supreme Court’s conservatives have let down democracy, Justice Kagan says

Not all of the court’s decisions have backed the Republican position. Both conservative and liberal justices have been skeptical of efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to alter mail ballot systems, for instance.

Despite Trump’s evidence-free claims of widespread voter fraud, the court in September notably rejected the president’s push to give the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. In June, a 5-4 majority upheld state laws that permit mail ballots to be received a few days after Election Day. Even as he has fixated on alleged problems with mail voting, Trump himself has frequently cast a ballot by mail .

Trump nominated three of the court’s nine justices during his first term. None of the three dissented from the court’s USPS decision.

“Justice Kagan is wildly off base, as are claims that the Supreme Court’s recent record in election cases has favored Republicans,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told CNN. “Her claims that the court has somehow undermined democracy are little more than political spin.”

If polls indicating that Democrats are poised for a victory next month are correct, then many of the Supreme Court’s recent election rulings may have only a negligible impact on the bottom line. But those following the long game say the impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions over the past year will be felt far beyond November.

“It’s critical to look beyond the partisan implications of the court’s decisions related to voting rights and to focus on how the court has undermined the very foundations of our multi-racial democracy,” said Samuel Spital, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “In a series of decisions over the last 13 years … a majority of unelected judges on the Supreme Court have dismantled the heart of the Voting Rights Act and put our multi-racial democracy in serious danger.”

What Snead described as “wildly off base,” Spital called “clear eyed.”

The timing of Kagan’s warning, just two weeks before the November 3 election, was notable.

“The people of America look around at this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare,” Kagan said at the Catholic University law event last week. “And they’re right.”

Named to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama more than 16 years ago, Kagan is often viewed as the member of its three-justice liberal wing who is most receptive to compromise with her conservative colleagues. That often manifests in subtle ways, such as her decision not to join particularly pointed dissents written by the court’s other two liberals.

But when it comes to election disputes, Kagan has been unsparing both in her dissents and in public appearances.

Why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson goes it alone

Earlier this year, it was Kagan who wrote the dissent in the hugely important 6-3 decision gutting the Voting Rights Act , warning that the consequences would be “far-reaching and grave.” Asked last year about her favorite opinion she has authored, Kagan pointed to her dissent in another high-profile redistricting case from seven years ago.

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

Speaking at Princeton University in early 2025 , Kagan used similarly stark terms to describe that case, in which the court’s 5-4 decision took federal courts out of the business of deciding challenges to partisan gerrymanders. In that decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court concluded even extreme line drawing for political advantage is “beyond the reach of the federal courts.”

“What the court did in that case, I thought, was just a real mistake,” Kagan told her alma mater last year. “The foundation of our democracy is voting, and if the voting rights aren’t equal then how does a system of democracy work?”

Kagan noted then that she had written “a lot of voting rights dissents” and that it is “an area that I really care about.”

The court’s most significant election decision this year came in April in a case called Louisiana v. Callais . With the conservatives aligned against the liberals, the court held that Louisiana’s decision to draw a second Black and Democratic district into the state’s overwhelmingly Republican delegation amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

That decision set off a series of subsequent emergency rulings in which the court allowed both Louisiana and Alabama to quickly redraw their maps for this election in a way that targeted Democratic-held seats. Those decisions boosted Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting drive. When the dust settled, Republicans had gained an advantage in nine seats.

When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, suggested in May that the court was rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election, conservative Justice Samuel Alito called the insinuation “insulting.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito wrote . “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Not all of the redistricting decisions went Republicans’ way. The court three times rejected an effort by Missouri Republicans to draw a Democratic congressman out of his seat. And back in February, with no noted dissent, the court allowed California to use a Democrat-friendly map for this year’s election.

Some of the court’s other election decisions have drawn less fire but will nevertheless have an impact.

Trump DOJ sues to block Alaska US Senate results if Republican incumbent loses

Over a dissent from the three liberal justices, the court last month allowed the Department of Homeland Security to provide citizenship verification to states based on a database critics say is riddled with errors. Trump has fixated on unfounded claims of widespread voting by noncitizens. The administration’s latest litigation on that front, challenging votes cast by some 20,000 Californians the administration believes could be noncitizens, is potentially on a path to Supreme Court review before the election.

And the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire officials to limit when voters may use a student ID to receive a ballot, agreeing that a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the policy was too close to Election Day. A recent CNN poll found that Democrats enjoy a 31-point advantage over Republicans among younger adults.

The court last week backed a Republican effort to lower television campaign ad rates for political parties, rejecting an appeals court decision that would have subjected the Federal Communications Commission to faster judicial review of its decision making. In a related decision in June, the court erased limits on how much political parties could coordinate with federal candidates.

Together, the decisions likely incentivized a move this week by the Republican National Committee to unload over $50 million to help midterm candidates. Kagan blasted the decision in June, noting in dissent that it overruled a 2001 precedent and predicting it would flood more money into campaigns.

“For those who think there is too much of it in this country — for those who would prefer even more money to be pumped even more easily into politics despite the danger of corruption,” she wrote, “this overruling is for you.”

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

选民将选出下个月中期选举的获胜者，但制定规则的是保守派的最高法院。

早在决定国会控制权的提前投票开始之前，法院就通过一系列裁决对选举产生了异常深远的影响，这些裁决重塑了选区重划、竞选资金法规、识别非公民选民的努力以及邮寄投票——通常以有利于共和党的方式进行。

有些裁决并未引起太多关注，例如本月法院的一项裁决，该裁决为各政党——尤其是共和党——在选情胶着的选区投入数百万美元用于电视广告扫清了障碍。而另一些裁决则更为引人注目，例如4月份以6比3的投票结果，该裁决实际上削弱了《投票权法案》保护少数族裔选民的权力，并促使共和党执政的各州重新划分选区。

多项裁决暴露了法官之间的紧张关系，这些紧张关系已公开化。

“法院似乎对自己的裁决对政治制度运作方式造成的非常有害的影响视而不见，并创造了一个运作不如预期的民主制度，”大法官埃琳娜·卡根周二在一次活动中发表了措辞异常坦率的批评，批评了法院的行为。

伊芙琳·霍克斯坦/路透社

卡根大法官表示，最高法院的保守派辜负了民主。

并非所有法院的裁决都支持共和党的立场。例如，保守派和自由派大法官都对唐纳德·特朗普总统及其盟友试图改变邮寄投票系统的努力持怀疑态度。

尽管特朗普毫无证据地声称存在大规模选民舞弊，但值得注意的是，最高法院在9月份驳回了总统赋予美国邮政署前所未有的权力，允许其扣留可能数百万张邮寄选票的请求。6月份，最高法院以5比4的多数票维持了各州允许在选举日后几天内接收邮寄选票的法律。尽管特朗普一直执着于所谓邮寄投票的问题，但他本人却经常通过邮寄方式投票。

特朗普在其第一任期内提名了最高法院九名大法官中的三位。这三位大法官均未对最高法院关于美国邮政总局的裁决提出异议。

“卡根大法官的说法完全错误，她关于最高法院近期在选举案件中的记录偏袒共和党的说法也同样站不住脚，”诚实选举项目执行主任杰森·斯尼德告诉CNN。“她声称最高法院以某种方式破坏了民主，这不过是政治宣传罢了。”

如果民调显示民主党有望在下个月赢得大选，那么最高法院近期的许多选举裁决可能对最终结果影响甚微。但着眼长远的人士认为，最高法院过去一年来的裁决影响将远远超出11月的选举结果。

“至关重要的是，我们要超越法院在投票权相关裁决中的党派色彩，关注法院是如何破坏我们多种族民主的根基的，”全国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金副主任兼律师塞缪尔·斯皮塔尔表示。“在过去13年的一系列裁决中……最高法院的大多数非民选法官已经瓦解了《投票权法案》的核心，并将我们多种族民主置于严重危险之中。”

斯尼德称之为“完全错误”的观点，斯皮塔尔称之为“目光敏锐”。

卡根发出警告的时机很耐人寻味，距离11月3日的大选仅两周之遥。

“美国人民环顾四周，看着这个政治体制，觉得所有这些金钱都在追逐这些政治候选人，简直是一场噩梦，”卡根上周在天主教大学法学院的活动上说。“他们的看法是对的。”

卡根大法官16年前由前总统奥巴马提名进入最高法院，她通常被认为是三位自由派大法官中最愿意与保守派同僚妥协的一位。这一点常常体现在一些微妙之处，例如她选择不加入其他两位自由派大法官撰写的措辞特别尖锐的异议意见。

但在选举争议问题上，卡根无论是在异议意见中还是在公开场合，都毫不留情。

为什么凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官要独自行动

今年早些时候，卡根在一项意义重大的6比3裁决中撰写了反对意见，该裁决削弱了《投票权法案》，她警告说，其后果将“影响深远且十分严重”。去年，当被问及她最喜欢的自己撰写的意见书时，卡根提到了七年前另一起备受瞩目的选区重划案件中的反对意见。

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

2025年初，卡根在普林斯顿大学发表演讲时，也使用了类似的严厉措辞来描述该案。在该案中，最高法院以5比4的投票结果裁定，联邦法院不再有权审理针对党派划分选区的挑战性案件。在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨撰写的判决书中，法院得出结论，即使是出于政治利益而进行的极端选区划分也“超出了联邦法院的管辖范围”。

“我认为，法院在那起案件中的判决完全是个错误，”卡根去年在母校接受采访时说道。“投票是我们民主的基石，如果投票权不平等，民主制度又如何运作呢？”

卡根当时指出，她写过“很多关于投票权的异议意见”，而且这是“我非常关心的一个领域”。

今年最高法院最重要的选举裁决发生在四月份的“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯案”中。保守派与自由派立场相左，最高法院裁定路易斯安那州将第二个黑人和民主党选区划入该州共和党占绝对优势的代表团的做法，构成违宪的种族选区划分。

这一决定引发了一系列后续的紧急裁决，法院允许路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州迅速重新划分选区，以针对民主党把持的席位。这些裁决推动了特朗普前所未有的中期选区重划行动。最终，共和党在九个席位上获得了优势。

今年 5 月，自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊暗示，最高法院为了影响 11 月的选举而违背了其“原则”，保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托称这种暗示是“侮辱性的”。

阿利托写道：“法院违反了哪条原则？是我们绝不应采取任何可能被无端批评为党派偏见的行动这一原则吗？”

并非所有选区重划的裁决都对共和党有利。法院三次驳回了密苏里州共和党人试图将一位民主党国会议员从其席位上拉下来的努力。早在今年二月，法院在没有明显异议的情况下，允许加利福尼亚州在今年的选举中使用对民主党有利的选区划分方案。

法院的其他一些选举裁决虽然没有引起太多争议，但也会产生影响。

如果共和党现任参议员败选，特朗普司法部将提起诉讼，阻止阿拉斯加州参议院选举结果的公布。

尽管三位自由派大法官持反对意见，最高法院上个月仍允许国土安全部根据一个被批评人士称为漏洞百出的数据库，向各州提供公民身份核实服务。特朗普一直执着于毫无根据地声称存在大量非公民投票。特朗普政府就此提起的最新诉讼，质疑约2万名加州选民的投票合法性，政府认为这些人可能是非公民。该诉讼有可能在大选前提交最高法院审理。

最高法院周四允许新罕布什尔州官员限制选民使用学生证领取选票的时间，并认为下级法院阻止该政策执行的裁决距离选举日太近。CNN最近的一项民调显示，在年轻选民中，民主党人比共和党人领先31个百分点。

上周，最高法院支持共和党降低政党电视竞选广告费率的努力，驳回了上诉法院的一项裁决。该裁决原本要求加快联邦通信委员会（FCC）决策的司法审查。在6月份的一项相关裁决中，最高法院取消了对政党与联邦候选人协调程度的限制。

这些决定很可能促使共和党全国委员会本周拨款超过5000万美元，用于支持中期选举候选人。卡根在6月份猛烈抨击了这一决定，他在反对意见中指出，该决定推翻了2001年的先例，并预测这将导致更多资金涌入竞选活动。

她写道：“对于那些认为这个国家政治资金过多的人——对于那些尽管存在腐败风险，却仍然希望将更多资金更轻松地投入政治的人——这次否决就是为了你们。”