(单词翻译:单击)
When the justices decide the case, Merrill v. Milligan, this term, they will be free not only to overturn the lower court’s decision, but to rewrite the rules governing how the Voting Rights Act applies to similar cases anywhere in the country.
当大法官在本任期内对梅里尔诉米利根案作出裁决时，他们不仅可以自由地推翻下级法院的裁决，还可以改写有关《选举权法案》如何适用于全国各地类似案件的规则。
Roberts conceded in his dissent that the district court had correctly followed precedent.
罗伯茨在表达异议时承认，地方法院正确地遵循了先例。
He also made it clear that, in his view, the precedent is overdue for revision.
他还明确表示，在他看来，这个先例早该进行修订。
As we saw in June, overturning precedent is no obstacle to a majority ready and willing to use its power to get what it wants.
正如我们在6月份所看到的那样，推翻先例并不妨碍多数人能够并愿意利用自己的权力得到自己想要的东西。
The justices have framed the question for this round as “whether the State of Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
大法官将这一轮的问题拟定为“阿拉巴马州为其2021年在美国众议院的七个席位重新划分选区的计划是否违反了《投票权法案》第二条。”
But the real question, the perilous one underlying that seemingly benign formulation, is this: Is Section 2 itself constitutional?
但真正的问题--这个看似温和的提法背后却藏着危险--是这样的：第二条本身符合宪法吗？
And in the dangerous space forced open by that question, the young John Roberts and the chief justice of the United States meet.
年轻的约翰·罗伯茨与美国首席大法官在因这个问题而被迫打开的危险空间中相遇。
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any electoral practice that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
《投票权法案》第二条禁止任何“因种族或肤色而导致美国公民投票权被否定或剥夺”的选举行为。
A violation has occurred if members of a racial or language minority group “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
如果一个少数种族(语言)群体的成员“比其他选民参与政治进程和选出代表的机会更少”，那么就违反了法律。
Section 2 is about the allocation of political power.
第二条是关于政治权力的分配。
It takes aim at “vote dilution,” defined as dispersing a cohesive minority group among several districts or lumping members of the group into one district.
该法条的目的在于“稀释选票”，即将一个紧密团结的群体分散到若干地区，或将该群体的成员集中到一个地区。
“Cracking” and “packing” seem to be what was happening in Alabama.
“分裂”与“聚集”似乎就是阿拉巴马州正在发生的事情。
A 1986 decision, Thornburg v. Gingles, laid out a road map for how to prove such a case, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the minority group was “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority.”
1986年的一项裁决--索恩堡诉金格尔斯案--为如何证明此类案件不成立制定了指导方针，这些案件要求原告证明少数群体“在规模上足够大，地理上足够紧凑，足以构成多数”。
That test is central to the Alabama case.
这一检验是衡量阿拉巴马州案的核心。
Obviously, applying that test requires an awareness of race.
显然，应用这种检验需要有种族意识。
How can line-drawers, or courts, know whether a minority group’s vote is being diluted without knowing where the members of the group live, and how many of them there are?
在不了解少数群体成员所居何地、人口多少的情况下，法院这个划线者如何知道这个群体的投票是否被稀释了?
