….this was happening. 

....，這是發生。

These poll workers are counting ballots that would decide the outcome of this election.  

這些投票站工作人員正在清點選票，這將決定這次選舉的結果。

But there's another reason why these states are critical. Republican lawyers have filed

但這些州之所以關鍵，還有一個原因。共和黨律師已經提交了

lawsuits in each one of these places, in an attempt to sue their way to electoral victory

在這些地方打官司，試圖用訴訟的方式獲得選舉的勝利

  The one in Pennsylvania is about whether a

賓夕法尼亞州的那個案子是關於

portion of the ballots should be counted.

部分選票應予計算。

Like everywhere else in the US, Pennsylvania had a mix of in-person and mail-in voting,

和美國其他地方一樣，賓夕法尼亞州也有當面投票和郵寄投票兩種方式。

and the difference between which type of voting Trump and Biden voters chose was huge. 

而特朗普和拜登的選民選擇哪種投票方式，差別很大。

All of these mail-in votes that arrived before Election Day, couldn't be counted until

所有這些在選舉日之前到達的郵遞選票 都要等到選舉日之後才能被計算出來。

then.  And ordinarily in Pennsylvania, any ballots

然後。 通常在賓夕法尼亞州，任何選票... ...

that arrive after Election Day, don't count at all. 

選舉日之後到達的，根本不算。

But because of the pandemic and mail delays, the state's highest court ruled that any

但由於疫情和郵件延誤，該州最高法院裁定，任何。

ballots postmarked on Election Day, and received up to 3 days after, would be counted.

以選舉日郵戳為準，並在選舉日後3天內收到的選票將被計算在內。

But that batch of votes became contentious.  The Trump campaign… they want these ballots

但那批選票變得有爭議。 特朗普競選團隊 他們想要這些選票

that arrive in the three day window after the election thrown out. // It's because Democrats

在選舉後的三天內到達的，扔掉。// 這是因為民主黨人

in this election were much more likely to vote by mail than Republicans were. 

在這次選舉中，通過郵寄投票的可能性比共和黨人大得多。

So the Trump campaign filed a motion with the US Supreme Court to overturn the Pennsylvania

於是，特朗普競選團隊向美國最高法院提出動議，要求推翻賓夕法尼亞州的。

court decision, and throw out any ballots received after Election Day…

並將選舉日之後收到的選票扔掉... ...

Should those three extra days of ballots matter, we believe we'll prevail in the Supreme

如果這額外的三天投票有問題的話 我們相信我們會在最高法院獲勝的。

Court

法院

Their hope is that the conservative-majority Supreme Court will back them up.

他們的希望是，保守派佔多數的最高法院會支持他們。

But what is the role of the Supreme Court in this election – and for the future?

但最高法院在這次選舉中--以及未來的作用是什麼？

“This promises to be one of the closest races in American presidential history” 

"這將是美國總統史上最接近的選舉之一"

The 2000 presidential race looms large over the question of whether a Supreme Court could

2000年的總統大選籠罩在最高法院是否可以

step in to decide the fate of an election. 

介入決定選舉的命運。

In that case, the race came down to a single state, Florida, where the Supreme Court halted

在該案中，比賽落到了一個州，佛羅里達州，在那裡，最高法院停止了。

a recount,  which handed George W. Bush the presidency,

重新計票，把總統職位交給了喬治-W-布什。

with only 537 votes over Al Gore. It was an extremely close race. 

僅以537票戰勝阿爾-戈爾。這是一場極其激烈的比賽。

I'm honored and I guess I better write an inaugural speech. 

我很榮幸，我想我最好寫一篇就職演說。

But the 2020 election is entirely different. Republican lawyers have filed lawsuits in

但2020年的選舉則完全不同。共和黨律師已經在

several states but they likely won't alter the course of the election—that's because

但他們很可能不會改變選舉的進程--那是由於。

they involve a small percentage of ballots in comparison to Biden's lead. 

與拜登的領先優勢相比，它們涉及的選票比例很小。

like one in Georgia that involved allegations of only 53 missing ballots, a state that Biden

比如在佐治亞州，有指控稱只有53張遺失選票，而拜登在該州

had been leading by nearly 2,000 votes by November 6. 

截至11月6日，已領先近2000票。

or another in Pennsylvania, which involved 93 ballots that had errors fixed, where Joe

或賓夕法尼亞州的另一個，其中涉及93張被修正錯誤的選票，其中Joe

Biden was leading by at least 7,000 votes.  Even a lawsuit in Nevada, which involves allegations

拜登至少領先7000票。 甚至在內華達州的一項訴訟，涉及指控

of 3,000 out-of-state voters, wouldn't do much in a state where Joe Biden was already

3,000名州外選民的支持率，在喬-拜登已經在該州的州內，也不會有太大的作用。

ahead by 22,000 votes.  So you're seeing these kind of rinky dink

領先22,000票 所以你看到的這些小玩意

lawsuits in a few states. I mean, they're hard to take seriously. 

在幾個州的訴訟。我的意思是，他們很難認真對待。

This is Ian Millhiser, he covers the Supreme Court for Vox. 

這是Ian Millhiser，他為Vox報道最高法院。

I think some of these… lawsuits are more about creating a press narrative than they

我覺得有些... 訴訟更多的是為了製造媒體的話題，而不是...

are about actually trying to win any kind of legal dispute. 

是關於真正試圖贏得任何類型的法律糾紛。

There are some serious allegations out there that deserve being pursued 

有一些嚴重的指控值得追究

The rule of law has lost its grip on the election process.

法治已經失去了對選舉過程的控制。

In other words, they sow distrust among Trump

換句話說，他們在特朗普中埋下了不信任的種子。

supporters, who are showing up to polling locations claiming, without evidence, that

支持者，他們在沒有證據的情況下出現在投票站，聲稱："我是說，我是說......"。

the process isn't fair. 

這個過程是不公平的。

It's left the voting system wide open to voter fraud.

這讓投票系統對選民舞弊敞開了大門。

Joe Biden's covering up this election, he's stealing it!

喬-拜登在掩蓋這次選舉，他在竊取它！

Stop the count! Stop the count!  They claim that there is evidence of voter

停止計數！停止計票！ 他們聲稱有證據表明選民

fraud, they still haven't produced evidence of that. 

欺詐，他們仍然沒有拿出證據。

The president's allegations of large scale fraud and theft of the election are just not substantiated.

總統關於大規模舞弊和竊取選舉的指控只是沒有得到證實。

There is one thing that I'm really worried about, this Pennsylvania

有一件事，我真的很擔心，這個賓夕法尼亞州的

lawsuit rests on a really radical and transformational theory. 

訴訟的基礎是一種真正的激進和變革的理論。

Ian is referring to the Trump campaign's request that the Supreme Court throw out ballots

伊恩指的是特朗普競選團隊要求最高法院撤銷選票的請求

received within 3 days of the election. That motion also won't alter the results,

在選舉後3天內收到。該動議也不會改變選舉結果。

because when Joe Biden won Pennsylvania to become the president elect,

因為當喬・拜登贏得賓夕法尼亞州的選舉，成為當選總統時，

those late-arriving ballots weren't included in the official counts, they had been set

這些遲到的選票並不包括在正式計票中，它們是被設定的。

aside pending a ruling.  But what makes the lawsuit radical is that

擱置等待裁決。 但是，這起訴訟之所以激進，是因為

after the state supreme court granted a ballot extension in September,

在州最高法院9月準許投票延期後。

Pennsylvania Republicans took it to the US Supreme Court a month later, as part of an

一個月後，賓夕法尼亞州的共和黨人將其提交給美國最高法院，作為一個。

attack on mail-in voting.  A 4-4 tied decision, without Amy Coney-Barrett,

攻擊郵寄投票。 4比4的平局，沒有艾米-科尼-巴雷特。

upheld the law, which is why Pennsylvania kept the extension. 

維護了法律，這也是賓夕法尼亞州保持延期的原因。

But the 4 conservative justices indicated how they might rule on future election laws. 

但4名保守派大法官表示，他們可能會如何對未來的選舉法進行裁決。

And that would depend on a line in the Constitution about how “state legislatures” should

而這將取決於憲法中關於 "州立法機構 "應該如何的一條規定。

determine the “time, place, and manner of holding elections.” 

確定 "舉行選舉的時間、地點和方式"。

he way that that word “legislature” has always been interpreted, going back at least

解釋 "立法機構 "這個詞的方式一直都是這樣的，至少可以追溯到過去。

more than a century, is that the word “legislature” means whatever the valid law- making process

一個多世紀以來，"立法機構 "一詞的意思是，無論有效的法律制定程序是什麼，都是如此。

is within that state.  In addition to literal state legislatures,

是在該州內。 除了字面上的州立法機構外，。

that includes the state constitutions, the state supreme courts that interpret those

包括各州的憲法，解釋這些憲法的州最高法院。

laws, and the governor's right to veto election laws. 

法律，以及州長否決選舉法的權利。

But there are at least four justices who think that the word legislature should be read sort

但至少有四位大法官認為，立法機關一詞應作如下理解："立法機關 "是指立法機構。

of hyper literally, meaning only the legislative branch of the state. 

的超字面意思，僅指國家的立法部門。

Which means the state legislature alone could drastically impact voting rights. 

這就意味著，僅州立法機構就能極大地影響投票權。

And in states with Republican-led state legislatures, which are a majority of them, that would mean

而在共和黨上司的州議會中，其中大多數州都是共和黨上司的州議會，這就意味著。

they would have the ability to create election

他們將有能力創造選舉

laws that manufacture electoral advantages for Republicans in future elections. 

在未來選舉中為共和黨人製造選舉優勢的法律。

Actions like gerrymandering electoral districts, voter ID laws which target Democratic voters,

像選區劃分、選民身份證法等針對民主黨選民的行動。

and closing polling places in Democratic districts.  And, unlike Democratic legislatures, they

並關閉民主黨選區的投票站。 而且，與民主黨的立法機構不同，他們

could look to the conservative majority Supreme Court for support.

可以向保守的多數派最高法院尋求支持。

Will the legitimate winner of the presidential

總統大選的合法獲勝者是否會

election be sworn in as president on January 20? I'm pretty confident that's going to happen…

1月20日宣誓就任總統？我很有信心，這將會發生... ...

but if the question you're asking me is, do I feel comfortable with the long term health

但如果你問我的問題是，我是否對長期的健康狀況感到滿意？

of US democracy? No, not at all. 

的美國民主？不，一點也不。