从中期选举的选区重划，到先发制人地试图阻止阿拉斯加州参议员选举结果的认证——当然，前提是“错误”的候选人获胜——共和党人一直在玩弄愚蠢的选举把戏。如今，至少在密苏里州，他们即将自食其果。
From midterm redistricting to pre-emptively attempting to prevent the certification of Alaska’s Senate election — providing, of course, that the “wrong” candidate wins — Republicans have been playing stupid electoral games. Now, at least in Missouri, they are about to collect their stupid prize.
密苏里州有八个众议院席位。目前，其中六个由共和党人占据，两个由民主党人占据。通过选区重划，共和党人以为他们可以重新划分其中五个选区，从而通过杰利蝾螈的手段多拿一个席位。
Missouri has eight House seats. Currently, they are held by six Republicans and two Democrats. Through redistricting, Republicans thought they could gerrymander their way into an extra seat by redrawing five of them.
但问题随之而来。密苏里州法律规定，一旦成功的公投请愿被提交，新的国会选区地图就必须暂停生效。2025年12月9日，“人民而非政客”组织提交了一份公投请愿，所附签名远远超过使其生效所需的数量。共和党籍州务卿丹尼·霍斯金斯没有处理这份请愿，而是将其搁置了九个月。随后，他在最后可能的日期将其驳回，依据的是一个站不住脚的理由：根据密苏里州宪法，新地图不能成为公投的对象。
But there were problems. Missouri law requires a new congressional map be placed on hold once a successful referendum petition is filed. On Dec. 9, 2025, the group People, Not Politicians filed a referendum petition along with more than enough signatures to validate it. Instead of processing it, Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins sat on it for nine months. He then rejected it on the last possible day, on the bogus theory that the new maps couldn’t be the subject of a referendum under Missouri’s constitution.
公投请愿的提交引发了一场法律战，密苏里州最高法院最终一致裁定，新地图不得使用，而且事实上从未合法过。然而在此期间，霍斯金斯试图通过在新地图下举行初选来制造“既成事实”，随后又辩称，用一套国会选区划分举行初选、再用另一套举行大选，将不符合宪法。
The referendum filing kicked off a legal battle, with the Missouri Supreme Court eventually ruling unanimously that the new map could not be used and, in fact, had never been legal. In the meantime, however, Hoskins had sought to create “facts on the ground” by using the new map for the primary election and then arguing that it wouldn’t be constitutional to hold a primary election with one set of geographical congressional districts and the general election with another.
多个联邦法院一致认为，这样的选举将违反宪法，最终以第八巡回上诉法院的一份意见书告终，该意见书命令大选使用与初选相同的国会选区地图。但美国最高法院三次中止了这些命令。因此，周二密苏里州将依据旧地图选举其众议院代表团，尽管在这场选举中参选的候选人是以新地图为基础赢得初选的。
Various federal courts agreed that such an election would violate the Constitution, culminating in an opinion by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordering the general election to use the same congressional map as the primaries did. But the U.S. Supreme Court stayed those orders three different times. So on Tuesday, Missouri will elect its House delegation based on the old map even though the candidates standing in that election won primaries based on the new one.
接下来的部分稍微涉及一些法律细节，请耐心听完。美国最高法院并未就案件实质作出裁决。相反，它暂停了第八巡回法院的命令，允许霍金斯使用新地图举行选举。这样做基于多种技术性法律理由，这些理由完全关乎案件的时机和程序姿态，与在大选中使用与初选不同的国会选区是否真正合宪无关。但法院保留了该意见本身。
This next part gets slightly into the legal weeds, so stick with me. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t actually decide the case on the merits. Rather, it stayed the Eighth Circuit’s order, allowing Hoskins to hold the election using the new map. It did so for a variety of technical legal reasons that had everything to do with the timing and posture of the case and nothing to do with whether it is actually constitutional to hold a general election using different congressional districts than were used in the primaries. But the court left the opinion itself in place.
我们面临的是一场前所未有的法律灾难。虽然霍金斯未能强迫密苏里州在大选中使用新的国会选区地图，但他确实设法获得了一项联邦上诉法院的已公布判决，认定在大选中使用旧地图违反美国宪法。该判决目前是有效法律，对联邦和州法院均具约束力。
What we are left with is an unprecedented legal train wreck. While Hoskins was not able to force Missouri to use the new congressional map in the general election, he did manage to get a published decision from a federal appellate court holding that conducting a general election using the old map violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision is currently good law and is binding in both federal and state courts.
换句话说，一旦选举结束，民主党人可以去法院，引用这一意见，要求不认证受影响国会选区的选举结果。而他们的要求理应被简易批准。
In other words, once the election is over, Democrats can go to court, cite this opinion, and demand that the results of the election in the affected congressional districts not be certified. And their demand ought to be summarily granted.
这意味着，至少五个密苏里州众议院选区的当选议员将无法在新一届国会就职，导致共和党净损失可能三个席位，而不是他们在这场混乱开始时试图实现的净增一个席位。
That means that no representatives from at least five Missouri House districts will be able to take their seats in the new Congress, resulting in a net loss of probably three Republican seats rather than a gain of one, which was what Republicans were trying to pull off when this whole mess started.
真正解决这一问题的唯一途径是重新举行选举，这一过程将耗时数月。即使最高法院想要介入，也很可能来不及在国会于1月3日召开前做出裁决。首先，时间不够；案件必须先经过州法院审理。而且如果密苏里州最高法院认定该选举也违反州宪法，美国最高法院将无法介入。
The only way to really fix this is to hold new elections, a process that will take months. It’s doubtful that the Supreme Court would be able to intervene by the time the Congress convenes on Jan. 3 even if it wanted to. For one thing, there’s not enough time; the case would have to work its way through the state courts first. And if the Missouri Supreme Court found that the election also violated the state constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court could not intervene.
当然，民主党人出于某种误入歧途的“公平竞争”观念，始终有可能拒绝扣动扳机、阻止结果获得认证。这将是一个巨大的错误。如果恶劣行为永远不承担后果，那么你只会得到更多恶劣行为。霍斯金斯作为州务卿的职责是确保密苏里州拥有公平自由的选举。然而，他却从事了所能想象的最愤世嫉俗、最不民主的行为之一，最终剥夺了整个州的选举权。
Of course, it is always possible that Democrats, out of some misguided notion of “fair play,” will refuse to pull the trigger and block the results from being certified. This would be an enormous mistake. If bad behavior never has consequences, then you get more bad behavior. Hoskins’s job as secretary of state was ensuring that Missouri has fair and free elections. Instead, he engaged in some of the most cynical, undemocratic behavior imaginable and ended up disenfranchising an entire state.
政治或许是一场游戏，但法律绝对不是。原则就是原则，一旦确立，双方都可以加以利用。在法庭上耍小聪明，几乎总是搬起石头砸自己的脚。
Politics may be a game, but the law is definitely not. Principles are principles and, once they are established, they can be used by either side. Getting too cute in court almost always blows up in your face.
这里发生的就是这种情况。为了替共和党人钻制度的空子，霍斯金斯诉诸法庭并赢得了一项判决，抢先宣布密苏里州11月的国会选举违宪，因而无法获得认证。如果密苏里州无法向国会派出众议员，他和他的共和党朋友们只能怪自己。
That’s what happened here. In an effort to game the system for Republicans, Hoskins went to court and won a judgement preemptively declaring Missouri’s November congressional election to be unconstitutional and, therefore, uncertifiable. If Missouri can’t send House members to Congress, he and his Republican friends have no one to blame but themselves.
所以，就让共和党人收下他们赢得的这枚愚蠢奖品吧。霍斯金斯的羞辱将成为一个警告：无论我们的政客行为多么愚蠢，民主始终是一件严肃的事情。克里斯·特鲁阿克斯是一名上诉律师，也是法治协会的创始成员。
So let Republicans collect the stupid prize they have won. Hoskins’s humiliation will serve as a warning that no matter how foolishly our politicians behave, democracy is always a serious business. Chris Truax is an appellate attorney and charter member of the Society for the Rule of Law.