this isn't what he expected.

這不是他所期望的。

The line went this way, in front of our auditorium...

隊伍往這邊走，在我們的禮堂前... ...

and then snaked around into our library.

然後蜿蜒曲折地走進我們的圖書館。

The last person at his polling location didn't get to vote until 1 am.

他所在投票點的最後一個人直到凌晨1點才有機會投票。

It was the longest line that I've waited in in my entire life.

這是我這輩子等過的最長的隊伍。

Some people, they were just like, "well, screw it."

有些人，他們只是想「好吧，算了。」

This was in a heavily Democratic part of Houston, Texas.

這是在德克薩斯州休斯頓一個民主黨人聚居的地方。

And it was a primary election, where Democrats and Republicans were voting on separate machines.

而且那是一次初選，民主黨和共和黨是用不同的機器投票。

But the county had given both parties the same number of machines to use.

但縣裡給雙方使用的機器數量是一樣的。

Also, Texas had closed hundreds of polling locations in recent years,

另外，德克薩斯州近年來已經關閉了數百個投票點。

meaning more people had to vote at fewer places.

意味著更多的人必須在更少的地方投票。

But not everyone has to wait.

但不是每個人都要等待。

This is a map of all the polling locations in Joseph's county that had reports of long lines.

這是約瑟夫縣所有有報道稱排長隊的投票點的地圖。

And here's the percentage of nonwhite voters in each area.

這是每個地區非白人選民的比例。

Notice how most places with lines were in less-white areas?

注意到大部分有線條的地方都在少白區嗎？

The poll closures, and the other decisions that led to those lines,

投票關閉，以及導致這些線路的其他決定。

disproportionately affected people of color.

對有色人種的影響尤為嚴重。

And whether or not that was intentional, those kinds of decisions, in places like Texas,

以及是否是故意的，這些決定，在德州這樣的地方。

used to be highly regulated and much less frequent.

以前是很規範的，頻率也低很多。

Today, that oversight is gone.

如今，這種疏忽已經消失了。

But the 2020 election could decide whether it comes back.

但2020年的選舉可能決定它是否回來。

This is the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

這是阿拉巴馬州塞爾瑪市的埃德蒙-佩特斯橋。

In 1965, a group of civil rights activists, including the future congressman John Lewis,

1965年，一群民權活動家，包括未來的國會議員約翰-劉易斯。

marched across the bridge, and were attacked and beaten by police.

遊行過橋，遭到警察的襲擊和毆打。

They were marching for voting rights.

他們是為了選舉權而遊行。

Back then, especially in the segregated South,

那時，特別是在種族隔離的南方。

there was rampant voter suppression of Black Americans.

有猖獗的選民壓制 美國黑人。

It started back when the 15th Amendment granted Black men the right to vote in 1870.

這要從1870年第15條修正案賦予黑人男子投票權說起。

That right was enforced by federal troops, who occupied the southern states

這一權利由聯邦軍隊執行，他們佔領了南部各州。

during a period known as “Reconstruction.”

在一個被稱為 "重建 "的時期。

But what happened after Reconstruction, was that the states passed a number of laws

但在重建後發生的事情是，各州通過了一系列的法律。

that effectively disenfranchised African Americans.

這實際上剝奪了非洲裔美國人的權利。

Of course, no law could say “no Black people can vote” — it had to be a little sneakier.

當然，任何法律都不能說 "黑人不能投票"--必須要偷偷摸摸。

Like the "grandfather clause," where you could only vote if your grandfather could vote.

就像 "祖父條款"，只有你的祖父能投票，你才能投票。

Which is impossible if your grandfather was a slave.

如果你爺爺是個奴隸，這是不可能的。

There were literacy tests, where voters, mostly Black voters,

有識字測試，選民，主要是黑人選民。

had to answer bizarre questions before they were allowed to vote.

必須回答奇怪的問題，才允許投票。

Not just tests to see whether or not you could read,

不僅僅是測試你是否會讀書。

but things like, could you recite the state's constitution?

但像這樣的事情，你能背出國家的憲法嗎？

And poll taxes, requiring voters, again mostly Black voters, to pay to be allowed to vote.

而人頭稅，要求選民，同樣主要是黑人選民，交錢才可以投票。

They selectively chose who had to abide by these rules.

他們有選擇地選擇了誰必須遵守這些規則。

In the 1950s and 60s, Congress passed several civil rights laws

在20世紀50年代和60年代，國會通過了幾項民權法。

that attempted to protect voting rights, getting rid of things like poll taxes.

試圖保護投票權，擺脫人頭稅等東西。

Still, by 1964, in Mississippi, barely 7% of nonwhite Americans could vote.

不過，到了1964年，在密西西比州，只有7%的非白人美國人可以投票。

Selma's Bloody Sunday drew attention to that.

塞爾瑪的 "血腥星期天 "引起了人們的注意。

It made Americans — and Congress — wonder if local officials,

這讓美國人--還有國會--懷疑地方官員是否。

like these guys,

像這些傢伙。

could really be trusted to enforce these new civil rights laws.

能否真正信任執行這些新的民權法。

So Congress wrote another one.

所以國會又寫了一個。

Ten days after Selma, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was introduced.

塞爾瑪事件十天後，1965年《投票權法》出臺。

It added additional protections, got rid of literacy tests...

它增加了額外的保護，擺脫了讀寫測試... ...

But it also had a way to prevent any other creative changes:

但它也有辦法防止任何其他創造性的變化。

State governments had to submit their changes to the federal government for approval.

州政府必須將其修改意見提交聯邦政府準許。

The Voting Rights Act identified parts of the country that had a history of voter discrimination,

《投票權法》確定了該國部分地區存在選民歧視的歷史。

mostly in the South, and set up federal oversight.

主要在南方，並建立了聯邦監督。

So if these places wanted to change anything about voting,

所以如果這些地方想改變什麼投票。

like enacting a new law, or closing polling locations,

如頒佈新的法律，或關閉投票站。

it first had to get the okay from the US Justice Department, or federal courts,

它首先要得到美國司法部，或者聯邦法院的同意。

that it wasn't discriminatory.

這不是歧視性的。

Immediately, nonwhite voter registration in these Southern states grew.

立即，南方這些州的非白人選民登記增多。

Like in Mississippi, where it went from barely 7% to almost 60% in just three years.

就像在密西西比州，短短三年時間就從勉強的7%上升到近60%。

The Voting Rights Act did what earlier civil rights laws hadn't.

《投票權法》做了以前民權法沒有做的事情。

But in 2013, the Supreme Court — with a majority of Republican-appointed judges —

但在2013年，最高法院--由共和黨任命的法官佔多數-

took on a case about the Voting Rights Act.

接手了一個關於《投票權法》的案子。

They decided that the way the law calculated which states would have that federal oversight

他們決定用法律的方式來計算哪些州會受到聯邦的監督。

was outdated and therefore unconstitutional.

是過時的，是以是違憲的。

"No one doubts that there is still voting discrimination in the South and in the rest of the country.

"沒有人懷疑，在南方和全國其他地區仍然存在投票歧視。

We do, however, find that the coverage formula in Section 4 violates the Constitution."

不過，我們確實認為第4條中的覆蓋公式違反了憲法"。

Almost immediately, voting laws that had previously been denied for being discriminatory

幾乎是立即，以前因歧視性而被否定的投票法

were enacted in these states.

在這些州頒佈了。

Literally the same day as the Supreme Court's decision, Texas did just that,

就在最高法院作出決定的同一天，德克薩斯州也這樣做了。

announcing a voter ID law that a federal judge had previously rejected,

宣佈一項聯邦法官此前拒絕的選民身份證法。

because it was "the most stringent in the country,"

因為它是 "全國最嚴格的"。

and “imposed strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor."

並 "對窮人施加嚴格的、無情的負擔"。

Other states enacted voter ID laws, too.

其他州也頒佈了選民身份證法。

Along with other measures that had previously been stopped, like purging voter rolls,

連同之前被制止的其他措施，比如清理選民名單。

and closing polling locations:

和關閉投票站。

1,173 places in total.

共1 173個名額。

750 just in Texas.

僅在德州就有750人。

An analysis by the Guardian looked at the 50 Texas counties

衛報》的分析研究了德州50個縣

that gained the most Black and Hispanic residents from 2012-2018,

2012-2018年，獲得最多黑人和西班牙裔居民的。

and the 50 Texas counties that gained the fewest Black and Hispanic residents.

以及獲得黑人和西班牙裔居民最少的50個德州縣。

In these counties, the combined population fell by 13,000 over that time.

在這段時間裡，這些縣的人口合計減少了1.3萬人。

And 34 of their polling places were closed.

而他們的34個投票點被關閉。

In these counties, the combined population grew by 2.5 million people.

在這些縣裡，人口合計增長了250萬。

But 542 of their polling places were closed.

但其中542個投票站被關閉。

Many officials in these states say changes like these aren't intended to disenfranchise specific voters.

這些州的許多官員說，這樣的變化並不是為了剝奪特定選民的權利。

But there's no way to really know.

但是沒有辦法真正知道。

What we do know is that almost all these states' governments are controlled by Republicans.

我們知道的是，這些州的政府幾乎都是由共和黨人控制的。

And the groups who tend to be disenfranchised by these changes are more often poor people

而往往被這些變化剝奪權利的群體更多的是窮人

and people of color.

和有色人種。

Most of whom tend to vote Democratic.

他們中的大多數人傾向於投票給民主黨。

Even when they're saying it's not, it's very hard to believe that, in fact,

即使他們在說不是，也很難相信，事實上。

they didn't have a strategic discussion

他們沒有進行戰略討論

about how they could minimize the Democratic Party's vote.

關於他們如何能儘量減少民主黨的選票。

In the Supreme Court decision, the Chief Justice told Congress it's okay to have oversight,

在最高法院的判決中，首席大法官告訴國會，可以進行監督。

just don't base it on old data.

只是不要基於舊數據。

"Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes speaks to current conditions."

"國會必須確保它所通過的立法符合當前的情況。"

And so in 2019, the House of Representatives did just that,

於是在2019年，眾議院就這樣做了。

passing a new bill to update the criteria for which states get federal oversight.

通過一項新法案，更新各州獲得聯邦監督的標準；

John Lewis, then a congressman in his 17th term, presided over the vote.

時任第17屆國會議員的約翰-劉易斯主持了投票。

But the bill passed almost entirely along party lines.

但該法案几乎完全按照政黨路線通過。

Almost no Republicans voted for it, and nearly every Democrat did.

幾乎沒有共和黨人投了贊成票，幾乎每個民主黨人都投了贊成票。

Then the bill moved to the Republican-held Senate, where it isn't going to get a vote.

然後，該法案移至共和黨把持的參議院，在那裡它不會得到投票。

And even if it does pass the Senate, the Trump White House has threatened to veto it,

而即使它真的在參議院通過，特朗普白宮也威脅要否決它。

arguing the oversight is unnecessary.

辯稱監督是不必要的。

But the House, Senate and White House are all up for grabs in the 2020 election.

但在2020年的大選中，眾議院、參議院和白宮都是爭奪的對象。

And this is one of the many areas the two presidential candidates have polar opposite views:

而這也是兩位總統候選人觀點截然相反的眾多領域之一。

"Pass the bill to restore the Voting Rights Act.

"通過法案，恢復《投票權法》。

It's one of the first things I'll do as president if elected."

這是我當選總統後首先要做的事情之一。"

In 2020, John Lewis died.

2020年，約翰-劉易斯去世。

The bill whose passage he'd presided over was renamed in his memory.

為了紀念他，他主持通過的法案被重新命名。

If the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act becomes law,

如果《約翰-劉易斯投票權促進法》成為法律。

its formula would restore federal oversight for several states.

其方案將恢復聯邦對幾個州的監督。

Including Texas.

包括德州。

It's like, if there are no rules to the game,

這就像，如果沒有遊戲規則。

then no one can really play the game.

那就沒有人可以真正的玩這個遊戲。